Brown v. Spartanburg County

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

John P. Brown,       
Appellant,

v.

Spartanburg County, Spartanburg County Public Defender’s Office, Spartanburg
County Detention Facility,        Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-126

Submitted February 10, 2003 – Filed
February 18, 2003

AFFIRMED

John P. Brown, of Fairfax, pro se.

William B. Darwin and Ginger Goforth, of Spartanburg, for
respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2),
SCACR, and the following authorities: As to issues I & IV: S.C. Code Ann.
§ 15-78-40 (Supp. 2001) (stating state agencies are liable for their torts,
subject to certain immunities); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(1), (5), (23), (25)
(Supp. 2001) (stating state agencies and their employees are not liable for
losses resulting from: 1) “administrative action[s] or inaction[s] of a legislative,
judicial, or quasi-judicial nature”; 2) the exercise of discretion or judgment;
3) the institution or prosecution of any judicial or administrative proceeding;
or 4) the duty to supervise, protect, control, or exercise custody over an inmate).

As to issues II, V, & VI: Huntley v. Young,
319 S.C. 559, 560, 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) (holding the “[d]enial of a [motion
to dismiss] does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party
from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case”); Rule 56(c),
SCRCP (stating summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material
fact exists and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law);
Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001) (holding
summary judgment is granted “when there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”); McClanahan
v. Richland County Council, 350 S.C. 433, 441, 567 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2002)
(holding appellant has no right to discovery where discovery would not aid the
trial court in rendering its decision whether to grant summary judgment); see
also Dunn v. Dunn, 298 S.C. 499, 502, 381 S.E.2d 734, 735 (1989)
(holding a trial court’s “rulings on discovery matters will not be disturbed
on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion.”  (emphasis added)); Belk
of Spartanburg, S.C., Inc. v. Thompson, 337 S.C. 109, 127, 522 S.E.2d 357,
366 (Ct. App. 1999) (“The burden is upon the party appealing from the order
to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion.”); First Sav. Bank
v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding “[m]ere
allegations of error are not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion”).

As to issue III: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-30(f) (Supp.
2001) (defining “loss,” under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act as, “bodily
injury, disease, death, or damage to tangible property, including lost wages
and economic loss to the person” suffering the injury); see S.C. Code
Ann. § 17-27-20(A)(1) (1985) (stating a person who has been convicted of a crime
may file an application for post-conviction relief if the person’s conviction
is: 1) in violation of the Constitution of the Untied States or the Constitution
or laws of South Carolina; or 2) otherwise subject to collateral attack on any
ground of alleged error).

AFFIRMED.1

CURETON, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

1 Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving
any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.