Barnes v. Serna

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

Thomas J.
Barnes, Appellant,

v.

Victor M. Serna
and Does 1 Through 50, Defendants,

Of Whom Victor
M. Serna is the Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

Doyet
A. Early, III, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-155 

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 12,
2011

AFFIRMED

 

Thomas J. Barnes, pro se, of Goose Creek,
for Appellant.

Duke R. Highfield, Stephen L. Brown, and Russell
Hines, all of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Thomas
J. Barnes appeals the dismissal of his action against Victor M. Serna.  Barnes
alleges the trial court (1) lacked jurisdiction to dismiss his case; (2)
violated his right to due process; (3) failed to make sufficiently specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) abused its discretion in
dismissing the case for the failure to prosecute and refusal to comply with a
discovery order to produce his tax returns.  Moreover, Barnes's Statement of
Issues on Appeal include whether the trial court abused its discretion in (1)
granting attorney's fees and costs; (2) "sanctioning [Barnes] for no good
cause shown" under Rule 11(a), SCRCP; and (3) "permitting [Serna] to
shop around until [he] found a judge that dismissed th[e] case."  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the
trial court lacked jurisdiction and violated Barnes's right to due process: R
& G Constr., Inc. v. Lowcountry Reg'l Transp. Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 437,
540 S.E.2d 113, 120 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding an issue is
abandoned if the appellant's brief treats it in a conclusory
manner); Carolina Water Serv., Inc. v. Lexington Cnty. Joint Mun. Water
& Sewer Comm'n, 367 S.C. 141, 149, 625 S.E.2d 227, 231 (Ct.
App. 2006) ("A reference to supporting authority without any
discussion of their applicability is conclusory
and constitutes an abandonment of the party's reliance on those cases."), rev'd
on other grounds, 373 S.C. 96, 97,
644 S.E.2d 681, 681 (2007).

2. As to whether the
trial court's dismissal order included sufficiently specific findings: Rule
208(b)(1)(B), SCACR ("[N]o point will be
considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal.").

3. As to the issues
relating to the grant of attorney's fees and costs; sanctions pursuant to Rule
11(a), SCRCP; and court shopping: Jinks v. Richland Cnty., 355 S.C. 341,
344 n.3, 585 S.E.2d 281, 283 n.3 (2003) (holding an issue enumerated in the
"Statement of Issues on Appeal" that is not argued in the brief is deemed
abandoned).

4.  As to whether the
trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Barnes's case for the refusal
to comply with discovery orders:[2] Rule 26(b), SCRCP (providing any nonprivileged matter is discoverable so long
as it is "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action"); Rule 37(b)(2)(C), SCRCP (providing that when a party fails to
obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the court "may make such
orders in regard to the failure as are just," including the dismissal of
the case); Barnette v. Adams Bros. Logging, Inc., 355 S.C 588, 593, 586
S.E.2d 572, 575 (2003) ("[S]anctions imposed in
discovery matters will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of
discretion.  The burden is on the party
appealing from the order to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion."
(citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

[2] Because we affirm the dismissal for Barnes's failure
to comply with discovery orders, we need not address whether dismissing the
case for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion.  See Bailey
v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 388 S.C. 1, 8, 693 S.E.2d
426, 430 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding that an appellate court need not address
remaining issues when a decision on a prior issue is dispositive).