Backman v. Medical University of South Carolina

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

Sammy L. Backman, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of
Antwon D. Chavis, a minor child and as Father and Next of Kin,       
Appellant,

v.

Medical University of South Carolina,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

A. Victor Rawl, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-079

Submitted February 1, 2005 – Filed February
4, 2005

AFFIRMED

Louis S. Moore, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Elliott T. Halio and Andrew S. Halio, both of Charleston,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  AppellantSammy L. Backman filed
this medical malpractice action in April 1990.  By consent order dated December
5, 1990, the parties agreed that the action was “ended and discontinued in accordance
with Rule 40(c)(3) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure with leave
for Plaintiff’s counsel to bring a new action or actions within thirty (30)
days from the date of the hearing held on December 3, 1990.”  In 1995, Rule
40(c)(3) was replaced by Rule 40(j).  Backman filed a motion to restore in November
2001.  The circuit court denied the motion to restore, and Backman appeals. 
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authority:  Graham
v. Dorchester County Sch. Dist., 339 S.C. 121, 528 S.E.2d 80 (Ct. App. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.