Driggers v. Shearouse

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Marion Driggers, Appellant,

v.

Daniel Shearouse, Honorable Jean Toal, Honorable Costa
Pleicones, Honorable Donald Beatty, and Honorable
John Kittredge, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212819

Appeal From Williamsburg County
R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-358
Submitted August 1, 2013 – Filed September 11, 2013

AFFIRMED

Marion Driggers, pro se, of Lake City.

Elizabeth Van Doren Gray and Tina Marie Cundari, both
of Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, of Columbia, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573, 743
S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires
affirmance."); Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010)
("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the
appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the
unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); id. at 346, 692 S.E.2d at 904
("It should be noted that although cases generally have discussed the 'two issue'
rule in the context of the appellate treatment of general jury verdicts, the rule is
applicable under other circumstances on appeal, including affirmance of orders of
trial courts." (quoting Anderson v. S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 322
S.C. 417, 420 n.1, 472 S.E.2d 253, 255 n.1 (1996) (quotation marks omitted))); id.
at 346, 692 S.E.2d at 903 ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set
forth in the statement of the issues on appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted));
Bochette v. Bochette, 300 S.C. 109, 112, 386 S.E.2d 475, 477 (Ct. App. 1989) ("An
appellant may not use either oral argument or the reply brief as a vehicle to argue
issues not argued in the appellant's brief.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.