SCDSS v. Gary Z. Thomas

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

South Carolina Department of Social Services,
Respondent,

v.

Tiffany Thomas, Gary Thomas, Connie Randall, and
Jody Lowe, Defendants,

Of whom Gary Thomas is the Appellant

and

Tiffany Thomas is a Respondent.

In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000744

Appeal From Anderson County
Karen F. Ballenger, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-339
Submitted September 15, 2021 – Filed September 20, 2021

AFFIRMED

Gary Thomas, of Pelzer, pro se.
Tiffany Marie Thomas, of Belton, pro se.

Kristin Kelly Millonzi, of Anderson, for Respondent
South Carolina Department of Social Services.

John Marshall Swails, Jr., of Greenville, for the Guardian
ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: Gary Thomas appeals an April 8, 2019 family court order
denying his Rule 60, SCRCP, motion. On appeal, he argues the family court erred
in its August 9, 2017 merits order. Thomas did not timely appeal the August 9,
2017 merits order because he did not serve the notice of appeal within thirty days
after receipt of written notice of entry of the order. See Rule 203(b)(3), SCACR
(providing a notice of appeal from the family court shall be served on all
respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or
judgment). Thus, Father's issue on appeal is not properly before this court.
Moreover, because Father did not raise any issue related to the April 8, 2019 order
on appeal in his appellate brief, we find he has abandoned any challenge to this
order. See Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered
[on appeal] which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal."); First
Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (considering
an issue abandoned because the appellant failed to provide pertinent argument or
supporting authority).

AFFIRMED. 1

KONDUROS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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