Jefferson Davis, Jr. v. Ellen Weaver

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

Jefferson Davis, Jr., Appellant,

v.

Ellen Weaver, Chad Connelly, Oran P. Smith, Neil J.
Mellen, Howard S. Rich, Rick Reames, Stephen D.
Kirkland, Palmetto Promise Institute, Palmetto Family
Council, Palmetto Family Alliance, South Carolinians for
Responsible Government, SCRG Foundation, Access
Opportunity South Carolina, Friedman Foundation for
Educational Choice, Inc., Cato Institute, South Carolina
Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Fund,
South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, South
Carolina Department of Revenue, South Carolina
Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, First
Impressions, Inc., d/b/a Richard Quinn & Associates,
First Tuesday Strategies, LLC, Bill Wilson, Jason
Bedrick, Jim DeMint, Randy Page, Tony Denny, Phillip
Cease, Melanie Barton, Doris Cubitt, Susan Thomas,
John McCormick, Nate Leupp, Institute of Management
Consultants USA, and John Doe(s) 1-40, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000648

Appeal From Richland County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-104
Submitted February 1, 2022 – Filed March 9, 2022
AFFIRMED

Jefferson Davis, Jr., of Greenville, pro se.

Miles Edward Coleman, of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, for Respondents
Howard S. Rich, SCRG Foundation, and Cato Institute.

M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., and Justin Paul Novak, both of
Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, of
Charleston; and Geoffrey Kelly Chambers, of Green
Cove Springs, Florida, all for Respondent South Carolina
Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Fund.

Christopher J. Daniels, of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent
Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Inc.

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., and Kathy R. Schillaci, both
of McCulloch and Schillaci, of Columbia, for
Respondent First Tuesday Strategies, LLC.

Mark Steven Barrow and Martin S. Driggers, Jr., both of
Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, PA, of Columbia, for
Respondents Palmetto Family Council and Palmetto
Family Alliance.

Andrew Elliott Haselden, of Howser Newman & Besley,
LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents South Carolina
Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation and
Doris Cubitt.

Kenneth Allen Davis and Tierney Felicia Goodwyn, both
of Boykin & Davis, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondents
South Carolina Education Oversight Committee and
Melanie Barton.
Mark V. Gende and Brandon Robert Gottschall, both of
Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, PA, of Columbia, for
Respondents South Carolinians for Responsible
Government and Phillip Cease.

Douglas Walker MacKelcan, III and Skyler Cole Wilson,
both of Copeland, Stair, Valz & Lovell, LLP, of
Charleston, for Respondent Stephen D. Kirkland.

R. Hawthorne Barrett, of Turner Padget Graham &
Laney, PA, of Columbia; and Alan G. Jones, of Turner
Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Greenville, both for
Respondent Tony Denny.

Benjamin Parker Mustian, of Columbia, for Respondent
First Impressions, Inc., d/b/a Richard Quinn &
Associates.

William H. Davidson, II and Michael Brian Wren, both
of Davidson, Wren & DeMasters, of Columbia, for
Respondents Rick Reames and South Carolina
Department of Revenue.

Jennifer Foulk Nutter and Deborah Harrison Sheffield,
both of Hood Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for
Respondent Institute of Management Consultants USA.

PER CURIAM: Jefferson Davis, Jr. appeals the circuit court's order dismissing
his amended complaint with prejudice for failure to timely serve Respondents. On
appeal, Davis argues the circuit court erred in (1) misinterpreting a prior court
order and (2) dismissing his case with prejudice instead of allowing him to serve
his amended complaint. We affirm.

We hold the circuit court did not err in dismissing Davis's complaint with
prejudice. A prior court ordered Davis to name and serve Respondents previously
named as John Does 1-20 within fifteen days of the court's order. Davis failed to
serve them within the time prescribed in the court's order. Moreover, Davis
previously had an opportunity to amend his complaint and failed to comply. Thus,
the circuit court did not err in dismissing Davis's complaint with prejudice. See
Doe v. City of Duncan, 417 S.C. 277, 285-86, 789 S.E.2d 602, 606 (Ct. App. 2016)
(concluding the circuit court properly dismissed Doe's action because he did not
serve the City within the statutory timeframe and, thus, did not commence a civil
action); Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 194, 470 S.E.2d 848, 850-51 (1996) (finding
the court properly dismissed the plaintiff's action when the plaintiff failed to serve
the summons and complaint); Georganne Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92,
399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990) (finding the trial court did not err in dismissing
the plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice when the relief granted "was not too
harsh under the totality of the circumstances" and the plaintiff had been given an
opportunity to litigate).

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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