UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1484
LEANORA NELSON; SELENA NELSON CECCHINI, Natural Daughter
and Heir at Law of Rosalind Nelson deceased; JEAN NELSON
LUMSBY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
LEVY CENTER LLC,
Defendant - Appellee,
v.
HORACE JONES; THE LAW OFFICES OF HORACE JONES; THE WILCY R.
NELSON FAMILY, LLC,
Third Party Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (9:11-cv-01184-SB)
Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: December 7, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leanora Nelson, Selena Nelson Cecchini, Jean Nelson Lumsby,
Appellants Pro Se. Demetri K. Koutrakos, Louis H. Lang,
CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Leanora Nelson, Selena Nelson Cecchini, and Jean Nelson
Lumsby (collectively, “the Nelsons”) appeal from the district
court’s order adopting the recommendations of the magistrate
judge and granting summary judgment in their civil action to
Defendant Levy Center LLC. The district court determined that
dismissal of certain of the Nelsons’ claims was warranted under
the Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine and that the entire action was
barred under the applicable statute of limitations. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district
court’s determination that the Nelsons’ action was barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment on this basis. 2 Nelson v. Levy Ctr.
LLC, No. 9:11-cv-01184-SB (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016).
1D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v.
Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
2After the district court issued its judgment, this court
issued an opinion clarifying the scope of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles Cty.,
Md., 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016). Because we affirm here on an
alternate basis, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the
district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis comports with Thana.
We also reject as without merit the Nelsons’ appellate arguments
suggestive of potential bias by the district court and
suggesting that the court erred by considering matters not cited
by Levy Center LLC in its summary judgment motion.
3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4