Erwin v. SCDPPS

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

Ralph L. Erwin, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and
Pardon Services, and the State of South Carolina,
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002534

Appeal From York County
S. Jackson Kimball, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-146
Submitted February 1, 2018 – Filed April 11, 2018

AFFIRMED

Ralph L. Erwin, of Spartanburg, pro se.

Stephanie Holmes Burton, of Gibbes Burton, LLC, of
Spartanburg, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rydde v. Morris, 381 S.C. 643, 646, 675 S.E.2d 431, 433 (2009) ("On
appeal from the dismissal of a case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), an appellate court
applies the same standard of review as the [circuit] court."); id. ("That standard
requires the [c]ourt to construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the
nonmovant and determine if the 'facts alleged and the inferences reasonably
deducible from the pleadings would entitle the plaintiff to relief on any theory of
the case.'" (quoting Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227, 233, 553 S.E.2d 496, 499
(Ct. App. 2001))); Wright v. Marlboro Cty. Sch. Dist., 317 S.C. 160, 163, 452
S.E.2d 12, 14 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The doctrine of res judicata originates from the
principles that public interest requires an end to litigation and that no one should be
sued twice for the same cause of action."); id. ("The res judicata defense requires a
showing of three essential elements: (1) the prior judgment must be final, valid and
on the merits; (2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in
the first; and (3) the second action must involve matters properly included in the
first action."); id. at 163-64, 452 S.E.2d at 14 ("Under the doctrine of res judicata,
a final judgment on the merits in a prior action will preclude the parties from
relitigating any issues actually litigated or those that might have been litigated in
the first action."); Rule 41(b), SCRCP (providing, "[u]nless the court in its order
for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any
dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction or for improper venue or for failure to join a party under Rule 19,
operates as an adjudication upon the merits" (emphasis added)).1

AFFIRMED.2

SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

1
As to Appellants remaining issues on appeal: Futch v. McAllister Towing of
Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (explaining an
appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue
is dispositive).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.