Fickens v. MUSC

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

George Wilford
Fickens, Appellant,

v.

Medical
University of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2012-UP-015

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed January
25, 2012

AFFIRMED

George Wilford Fickens, pro se.

Robin L. Jackson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  George
Wilford Fickens appeals the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in
favor of the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC), arguing the circuit
court erred because an issue of fact existed about whether MUSC committed gross
negligence when its employee drew a sample of his blood in violation of
hospital policy and South Carolina law.  Moreover, Fickens contends the circuit
court abused its discretion in denying his motion for the appointment of a
guardian ad litem (GAL).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying Fickens's motion for the appointment of a GAL:
Rule 17(c), SCRCP ("[For a] person imprisoned . . . in this State, and not
a minor or incompetent, the [circuit] court may, in its discretion appoint a
[GAL]."); Gossett v. Gilliam, 317 S.C. 82, 85, 452 S.E.2d 6, 8 (Ct.
App. 1994) ("The [circuit] court should evaluate whether a [GAL] is
essential for the protection of the [in-state prisoner's] rights under the
particular circumstances of the pending action.").

2.  As to whether the circuit court
erred in granting MUSC's motion for summary judgment: Ex parte Bland,
380 S.C. 1, 12-13, 667 S.E.2d 540, 546 (2008) (holding an argument on appeal
that "differs significantly" from the theory of the case presented to
the circuit court is unpreserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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