McGeary v. SCDMV

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

John McGeary, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles and South
Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants,

Of whom South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-200827

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-575
Submitted September 3, 2012 – Filed October 24, 2012

AFFIRMED

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., and Kathy Ridenoure
Schillaci, both of the Law Offices of Joseph M.
McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Philip S. Porter, Frank L. Valenta, Jr., and Linda Annette
Grice, all of the South Carolina Department of Motor
Vehicles, of Blythewood, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: John McGeary appeals an order issued by the Administrative
Law Court (the ALC) affirming a decision of the Office of Motor Vehicle Hearings
(the Office) sustaining the suspension of his driver's license. On appeal, McGeary
contends the ALC erred in affirming (1) the Office's dismissal of his case because
it amounted to improper burden shifting and (2) the Office's denial of his motion to
reconsider. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:1

1. As to whether the ALC erred in finding the Office's dismissal did not amount to
improper burden shifting: Home Med. Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 382
S.C. 556, 562, 677 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2009) ("As in other appellate matters, we
require issue preservation in administrative appeals."); Brown v. S.C. Dep't of
Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) (noting an
issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the agency to be preserved for appellate
review).

2. As to whether the ALC erred in affirming the Office's denial of McGeary's
motion for reconsideration: Kleckley v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 338 S.C. 131, 138, 526
S.E.2d 218, 221 (2000) (noting an issue must be addressed by both the trial court
and an intermediate appellate court to be properly preserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

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

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