Michael Qualls v. Town of McBee

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

Michael Qualls, Appellant,

v.

Town of McBee, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2022-001741

Appeal From Chesterfield County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-205
Submitted May 1, 2024 – Filed June 5, 2024

AFFIRMED

Skyler Bradley Hutto, of Williams & Williams, of
Orangeburg, for Appellant.

Jerome Scott Kozacki, of Willcox Buyck & Williams,
PA, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Qualls appeals the circuit court's grant of summary
judgment for the Town of McBee (McBee) in Qualls's action for (1) gross
negligence; (2) breach of South Carolina Constitutional rights; (3) false
imprisonment; and (4) malicious prosecution. On appeal, he argues the circuit
court erred in finding McBee and its agents were immune from Qualls's claims of
gross negligence and violations of Qualls's constitutional rights. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

The circuit court found that Qualls's claims were barred both by judicial immunity
and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA); however, Qualls only argues
against the judicial immunity finding on appeal. Therefore, the circuit court's
finding that Qualls's gross negligence claim was barred by the SCTCA ruling is the
law of the case. See First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Soden, 333 S.C. 554, 566,
511 S.E.2d 372, 378 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Failure to challenge the ruling is an
abandonment of the issue and precludes consideration on appeal. The
unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires
affirmance."). 1

Regarding issues two and three—Qualls's claims of violations of his constitutional
rights—we hold the circuit court did not err by granting summary judgment to
McBee. See Town of Summerville v. City of North Charleston, 378 S.C. 107,
109-10, 662 S.E.2d 40, 41 (2008) ("A grant of summary judgment is proper when
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law."). Without deciding whether the Clerk of Court for
the McBee Municipal Court was entitled to judicial immunity, we examine the
merits of these issues and hold that, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Qualls, Qualls failed to establish the Clerk was required to send back
filed copies of motions and the letter of representation Qualls faxed, and Qualls did
not otherwise show said documents had not been filed. Therefore, Qualls has not
shown a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether his due process rights
were violated. See Callawassie Island Members Club, Inc. v. Martin, 437 S.C.
148, 157, 877 S.E.2d 341, 345 (2022) ("When determining if any triable issues of
fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party." (quoting Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488,
493–94, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002))). Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in
granting summary judgment. See Rule 56(e), SCRCP ("When a motion for
summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse
party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his
response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.").

1
To the extent Qualls seeks a ruling on the gross negligence standard being read
into all other exemptions, that issue is not before us on appeal because it was not
set forth in the statement of issues and the other claims were not appealed.
AFFIRMED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and TURNER, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.