Archie v. Howie

SCREENING MEMORANDUM

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

Ex Parte:  Nettie Archie d/b/a Archie Bail Bonding Co., Inc. and Accredited
Surety and Casualty Co., Inc.,

Of Whom Nettie Archie is the       
Appellant,

In Re:

The
State,        Respondent.

Madeline Ann Howie       
Defendant.

Appeal From York County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-355

Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed June
4, 2004

AFFIRMED

Nettie M. Archie, of Chester, pro se.

Attorney General Henry Dargan
McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
General Charles H. Richardson, Harold M. Coombs, all of Columbia;  and Solicitor
Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Archie contends the trial court
made several mistakes with regards to the Estreatment Hearing. We affirm
[1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR and the following authorities:  Ellie,
Inc. v. Miccichi, ___ S.C. ___, ___ 594 S.E.2d 485, 496 (Ct. App. 2004);
(stating that pursuant to Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR, the brief shall be divided
into as many parts as there are issues to be argued.  “At the head of each part,
the particular issue to be addressed shall be set forth in distinctive type,
followed by discussion and citations of authority”); Glasscock Inc., v. United
States Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App.
2001) (finding where an issue is not argued within the body of the brief but
is only a short conclusory statement, the issue is abandoned on appeal); State
v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 265, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) (finding a pro
se litigant has full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural
requirements of the law); Goodson v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla.,
295 S.C. 400, 403, 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (“Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings
is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard
that is applied to an attorney.”); State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405,
___, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1957) (“The granting or refusal of a motion for continuance
is within the discretion of the trial judge and his disposition of such a motion
will not be reversed on appeal unless it is shown that there was an abuse of
discretion to the prejudice of appellant.”).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court
in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.