Toney v. United States

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

Laura Toney, Appellant,

v.

United States of America, United States Department of
Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration,
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000361

Appeal From Lee County
George M. McFaddin, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-440
Submitted October 1, 2021 – Filed December 8, 2021

AFFIRMED

Laura Toney, of Bishopville, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Laura Toney appeals the circuit court's dismissal of her case
against "the United States of America, acting through the Farmers Home
Administration, [and the] United States Department of Agriculture." On appeal,
Toney argues the circuit court erred because (1) the circuit court "had general
jurisdiction over this case because it deal[t] with [s]tate issues" and (2) she was
entitled to a default judgment. Because the circuit court properly determined it did
not have jurisdiction, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 9-10 (2012)
("Sovereign immunity shields the United States from suit absent a consent to be
sued that is '"unequivocally expressed."'" (quoting United States v. Nordic Vill.,
Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-34 (1992))); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212
(1983) ("It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent
and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction."); Fed. Deposit
Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) ("Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional
in nature."); id. ("Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the [f]ederal
[g]overnment and its agencies from suit."); Robinson v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 917
F.3d 799, 801 (4th Cir. 2019) ("A waiver of the [f]ederal [g]overnment's sovereign
immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text . . . and will not be
implied." (omission by court) (quoting Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996))).1

AFFIRMED. 2

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
Because the circuit court properly determined it did not have jurisdiction, we
need not reach Toney's remaining issue. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of
Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating an
appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior
issue is dispositive of the appeal).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.