Jones v. Sumter County Sheriff's Office

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

Charles Jones,
in his capacity as Personal Representative for the Estate of Boyce Jones, Appellant,

v.

Sumter County
Sheriff's Office, Respondent.

Appeal From Sumter County

 R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-058

Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed
February 15, 2011

AFFIRMED

J. David Weeks, of Sumter, for Appellant.

G. Murrell Smith, Jr., of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles
Jones, the personal representative for the estate of Boyce Jones, appeals the
trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Sumter County Sheriff's
Office (the Office).  On appeal, Jones argues the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment because the Office acted in a grossly negligent manner.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Edwards v. Lexington Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 386 S.C. 285, 290, 688 S.E.2d 125, 128 (2010) ("When
reviewing a grant of summary judgment, an appellate court applies the same standard
used by the trial court"); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (stating summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(6) (2005) (stating a
governmental entity is immune from liability under the South Carolina Tort
Claims Act (the Act) for the methods the police utilize while providing
protection); Huggins v. Metts, 371 S.C.
621, 624, 640 S.E.2d 465, 466-67 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding police immune from
liability under the Act for acts concerning the police methods used while
providing protection).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 

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