Charpia v. Dorchester County Sheriff's Department

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

Howard W. Charpia, Appellant,

v.
Dorchester County Sheriff,
Dorchester County Sheriff's
Office, and Dorchester County
Sheriff's Department, Respondents.

__________

Appeal From Dorchester County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge
__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-445
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed July 18, 2012
__________

AFFIRMED
__________

Howard W. Charpia, pro se, of Summerville.

Christopher L. Murphy, of Charleston, for
Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Howard W. Charpia appeals the trial court's grant of
summary judgment to the Dorchester County Sheriff, Dorchester County
Sheriff's Office, and Dorchester County Sheriff's Department (collectively,
Sheriff's Department) on Charpia's claims of negligence, negligence per se,
conspiracy, and collusion. Charpia argues the trial court erred in (1) granting
summary judgment to the Sheriff's Department, (2) not considering Charpia's
video evidence, and (3) considering evidence of the cancellation of the
property sale. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
to the Sheriff's Department: Rule 56(c), SCRCP (stating summary judgment
is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law."); Thompkins v. Festival Ctr. Grp. I, 306 S.C.
193, 194, 410 S.E.2d 593, 593-94 (Ct. App. 1991) ("Summary judgment is
appropriate in those cases in which plain, palpable and undisputable facts
exist on which reasonable minds cannot differ. It is not sufficient that one
create an inference which is not reasonable or an issue of fact that is not
genuine."); Nelson v. Piggly Wiggly Cent., Inc., 390 S.C. 382, 388, 701
S.E.2d 776, 779 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[S]ummary judgment is completely
appropriate when a properly supported motion sets forth facts that . . . are
contested in a deficient manner." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2. As to Charpia's remaining issues: Langehans v. Smith, 347 S.C.
348, 353, 554 S.E.2d 681, 684 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding an issue not ruled on
by the trial court is not preserved for appellate review); Chastain v.
Hiltabidle, 381 S.C. 508, 514-15, 673 S.E. 826, 829 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[A]n
appellate court cannot address an issue unless it was raised to and ruled upon
by the trial court.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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