Diabate v. MUSC

SCREENING MEMORANDUM

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

Amadou Diabate,       
Appellant,

v.

MUSC,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-361

Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed June
4, 2004

AFFIRMED

Amadou Diabate, of North Charleston, Pro se.

Robert H. Hood, Robert H. Hood, Jr., Roy P. Maybank, and
Deborah Harrison Sheffield, all of Charleston, for Respondent.         

PER CURIAM:  Diabate appeals the trial court’s
grant of summary judgment based on Diabate’s failure to provide expert testimony. 
We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule
220, SCACR and the following authorities:  Sheppard v. Kimbrough, 282
S.C. 348, 356. 318 S.E.2d 573, 579 (Ct. App. 1984) (stating on a defendant’s
motion for summary judgment, there is usually no genuine issue of material fact
unless the plaintiff presents expert testimony on the standard of care and its
breach by the defendant); Henson v. International Paper Co., ___ S.C.
___, ___, 594 S.E.2d 499, 503 (Ct. App. 2004) (“Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR requires
an appellant’s initial brief to contain a statement of each of the issues presented
for review.”); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694
(2003) (“No point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement
of issues on appeal."); Glasscock Inc., v. United States Fid. &
Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding
where an issue is not argued within the body of the brief but is only a short
conclusory statement, the issue is abandoned on appeal);  Fields v. Melrose
Ltd. Partnership, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 2003)
(stating issues on appeal which are not argued in the brief are deemed abandoned
and will not be considered by the appellate court); State v. Burton,
356 S.C. 259, 265, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) (finding a pro se litigant
has full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements
of the law); Goodson v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 295 S.C. 400,
403, 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (“Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable
and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied
to an attorney.”).

AFFIRMED.

HOWARD, BEATTY, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court
in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.