Shaffer v. Bacot

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
RECITED OR RELIED ON IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2),
SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Dale Shaffer, Pro Se       
Appellant,

v.

Adam Bacot,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Greenwood County

Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-339

Submitted May 12, 2004 – Filed May 18,
2004

AFFIRMED

Dale Shaffer, of Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia, for Appellant.

R. Davis Howser and Andrew E. Haselden, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this legal malpractice action,
Dale Shaffer appeals the order of the trial court granting Adam Bacot’s motion
to strike portions of Shaffer’s complaint.  Shaffer argues the court erred in
granting the motion to strike and that the process of litigating legal malpractice
claims violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. 
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: 
Totaro v. Turner, 273 S.C. 134, 135, 254 S.E.2d 800, 801 (1979) (stating
a motion to strike is addressed
to the sound discretion of the trial court; the trial court’s decision will
not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion); Rule 12(f), SCRCP
(stating the trial court may order stricken from any pleading “redundant, immaterial,
impertinent or scandalous matter”); Beaufort County v. Butler, 316 S.C.
465, 468, 451 S.E.2d 386, 388 (1994) (stating constitutional claims must be
raised and ruled upon below to be preserved for appeal).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF,
and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.