Adams v. Richland 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

George M. Adams, Appellant,

v.

Richland County Sheriff's Department, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001175

Appeal From Richland County
Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-064
Submitted January 1, 2022 – Filed February 9, 2022

AFFIRMED

George M. Adams, pro se.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Lindemann & Davis, P.A., of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: George M. Adams appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his
causes of action based on his failure to pay the required filing fee. On appeal,
Adams argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. We hold the circuit court did not err because there was no statute or
constitutional provision that authorized Adams to proceed in forma pauperis and
his causes of action did not involve any fundamental rights. Accordingly, we
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Ex parte
Martin, 321 S.C. 533, 535, 471 S.E.2d 134, 134-35 (1995) ("In the absence of a
statutory provision allowing the general waiver of filing fees, we conclude motions
to proceed in forma pauperis may only be granted where specifically authorized by
statute or required by constitutional provisions."); id. at 535, 471 S.E.2d at 135
("Further, where certain fundamental rights are involved, the Constitution requires
that an indigent be allowed access to the courts.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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