Filed: Feb. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2158 YVONNE NELSON; D. NELSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. AVX CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:11-cv-01598-RBH) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yvonne Nelson, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2158 YVONNE NELSON; D. NELSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. AVX CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:11-cv-01598-RBH) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yvonne Nelson, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2158 YVONNE NELSON; D. NELSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. AVX CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:11-cv-01598-RBH) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yvonne Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yvonne Nelson and her minor child appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nelson v. AVX Corp., No. 4:11-cv-01598-RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 14, 2011). We deny Nelson’s motions to seal, for transcripts at the Government’s expense and for settlement. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
