Bennett v. State

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Ron C. Bennett,       
Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, County of Marion, and Magistrate Lunette Cox,       
Respondents.

Appeal From Marion County

James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-319

Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed May
14, 2004  

AFFIRMED

Ron C. Bennett, of Marion, pro se, for Appellant.

Robert E. Lee and Amy Wise, of Forence, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Ron C. Bennett appeals, contending
the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the respondents the State
of South Carolina, the County of Marion, and Magistrate Lunette Cox.  We affirm
pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(2), SCACR, and S.C. Code Ann. § 14-8-250 (Supp.
2003), along with the following authorities:  Taylor v. Medenica, 331
S.C. 575, 582, 503 S.E.2d 458, 462 (1998) (noting an issue which is raised but
not argued in brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal);
Muir v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 336 S.C. 266, 298, 519 S.E.2d 583, 600 (Ct.
App. 1999) (holding conclusory arguments may be treated as abandoned); Englert,
Inc. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 315 S.C. 300, 304, 433 S.E.2d 871, 873 (Ct.
App. 1993) (noting a conclusory argument does not present any issue for consideration
on appeal); Moody v. McLellan, 295 S.C. 157, 162, 367 S.E.2d 449, 452
(Ct. App. 1988) (stating an alternative ruling of the trial court in granting
summary judgment that was not excepted to constitutes a basis for affirming
the trial court and is not reviewable on appeal).         

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.