Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01484/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01484-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Selena Nelson Cecchini
Appellant
Horace Jones

Levy Center LLC
Appellee
Jean Nelson Lumsby
Appellant
Leanora Nelson
Appellant
The Law Offices of Horace Jones

The Wilcy R. Nelson Family, LLC

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,

Appeal: 16-1484 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/07/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-1484 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/07/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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-Feldman1 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). 

 1 D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. 

Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 

2 After 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. 

Appeal: 16-1484 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/07/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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

Appeal: 16-1484 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/07/2016 Pg: 4 of 4