Scott v. Windham

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Alphonso Scott, Appellant,

v.

Roland Windham,
Charleston County Administrator, Christine O. Durant, Director of Operation,
Charleston Center, Samuel B. Glover, Director, State of South Carolina
Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondents.

Appeal From Charleston County

 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-621

Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed
November 12, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Alphonso Scott, of Ravenel, pro se, for Appellant.

Bernard E. Ferrara, Jr., of North Charleston; Teresa A. Knox,
Deputy Director for Legal Services, Tommy Evans, Jr., Legal Counsel, and J.
Benjamin Aplin, Legal Counsel, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Alphonso Scott appeals the trial court’s
dismissal of his request for injunctive relief for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, and other issues relating to the dismissal.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Spence v. Spence, 368 S.C. 106, 116, 628 S.E.2d 869, 874 (2006) (stating in
deciding whether the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss, the
appellate court must consider whether the complaint, viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, states any valid claim for relief).[2]

AFFIRMED.

Williams, Pieper,
and Geathers, JJ., concur.

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

[2] As dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is
dispositive, we need not address the other issues relating to the trial court’s
order.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335
S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not
review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive
of the appeal).