Harris v. Beaufort County Sheriff's Department

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

Lee W. Harris, Appellant,

v.

Beaufort County
Sheriff's Department, Respondent.

Appeal From Beaufort County

Carmen Tevis Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.2011-UP-037   

Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed February
1, 2011

AFFIRMED

Chalmers C. Johnson, of Tacoma, for
Appellant.

Mary Bass Lohr, of Beaufort, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Lee W. Harris
brought an action for breach of contract after his termination from employment with
the Beaufort County Sheriff's Office.  On appeal, Harris argues the trial court
erred in granting the Sheriff's Office's motion for summary judgment and
finding section 23-13-10 of the South Carolina Code (2007) did not preclude
Harris's termination by the Sheriff's Deputy Chief. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court erred
in granting Sheriff's Office's motion for summary judgment: Nelson v. Charleston Cnty. Parks & Recreation Comm'n, 362 S.C. 1, 4, 605 S.E.2d 744, 746 (Ct. App. 2004) ("When
reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, the appellate court applies
the same standard which governs the trial court . . . ."); Rule 56(c),
SCRCP (finding summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law");  S.C. Code Ann. § 23-13-10 (2007) (stating
a deputy serves at the pleasure of the sheriff); Botchie v. O'Dowd, 315
S.C. 126, 129, 432 S.E.2d 458, 460 (1993) ("[A] sheriff may not compromise
his statutory authority to discharge deputies at his discretion. To hold
otherwise renders the language of [section] 23-13-10 meaningless and
eviscerates the sheriff's ability to discharge deputies at his pleasure.")
(quotation marks and citation omitted).

2.  As to whether the trial court
erred in finding section 23-13-10 of the
South Carolina Code (2007) did not preclude Harris's termination by the Sheriff's
Deputy Chief: Shirley's
Iron Works, Inc. v. City of Union, 387 S.C.
389, 400, 693 S.E.2d 1, 6 (Ct. App. 2010) ("It is axiomatic that for an
issue to be preserved for appeal, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., SHORT, and
WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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