Briket v. Blackwell

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

Janis and
Jeromy Birket, Respondents,

v.

Walter L. Blackwell,
III and Maureen Blackwell, Appellants.

Appeal From Richland County

 John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-343

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 30,
2010

APPEAL DISMISSED

Maureen Blackwell and Walter L. Blackwell,
III, both pro se, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: On May 6, 2008, Janis
and Jeromy Birket filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction based on Walter L. Blackwell, III and Maureen
Blackwell's (collectively the Blackwells) harassment. On May 28, 2008, a permanent restraining order
hearing was held, and the magistrate's court issued a restraining order
effective until May 28, 2009.  Thereafter, the circuit court affirmed the
magistrate's court grant of a restraining order.  The Blackwells now appeal to
this court.  The restraining order
expired by its own terms on a May
28, 2009, thus we find a ruling on the issues pending before this court will
have no practical effect on the parties to this appeal.  Accordingly, we
dismiss[1] the appeal as moot.  See Curtis v. State,
345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("An appellate court will
not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there
remains no actual controversy."); see also Seabrook v. City of
Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306, 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) ("A
case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical effect
upon existing controversy.").

APPEAL DISMISSED.

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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