Singleton v. City of Georgetown

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

Willie
Singleton and Julia Thomas, Heirs at Law of Victoria Gadson, deceased, Plaintiffs,

Of whom Willie
Singleton is the Appellant,

v.

City of
Georgetown Building Official Stephen Stack, Mayor Lynn Wood Wilson, Mayor Pro
Temp Brendon M. Barber, Sr., Council Member Clarence Smalls, Council Member
Paige B. Sawyer, III, Council Member Rudolph A. Bradley, Council Member Jack
Scoville, Director of Building Planning Sabrina Morris, Steve Thomas, City
Administrator, and The City of Georgetown, Respondents.

Appeal From Georgetown County

Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-061

Submitted January 3, 2012 – February 8,
2012

AFFIRMED

Willie Singleton, pro se, of Georgetown.

Douglas Charles Baxter, of Myrtle Beach, and
Mason A. Summers, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Willie
Singleton appeals the dismissal of individual defendants and his claim for
punitive damages from his civil action, arguing the circuit court erred in: (1)
dismissing individual defendants from the complaint; (2) dismissing his claim
for punitive damages; (3) not supporting its order with proper legal authority;
(4) concluding the demolition of the building was an accident; and (5) not
considering "dual capacity" and "dual persona" theories.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to
whether the circuit court erred in dismissing individual defendants from the
complaint:  Cricket Cove Ventures, LLC
v. Gilland, 390 S.C. 312, 321, 701
S.E.2d 39, 44 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In deciding whether the [circuit] court
properly granted the motion to dismiss, the appellate court must consider
whether the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
states any valid claim for relief. . . .  [T]his [c]ourt
. . . must presume all well pled facts to be true." (citations
and quotation marks omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-70(a)-(b) (2005)
("An employee of a governmental entity who commits a tort while acting
within the scope of his official duty is not liable . . . [unless] the employee's conduct was not within the
scope of his official duties or that it constituted actual fraud, actual
malice, intent to harm, or a crime involving moral turpitude."); S.C. Code
Ann. § 15-78-30(i) (2005) ("'Scope of official duty'. . . means (1) acting
in and about the official business of a governmental entity and (2) performing
official duties."); Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 205, 584
S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding an employee of a governmental entity
may exceed his authority, but an action still falls within the scope of
official duty if done in furtherance of his master's business); S.C. Code Ann. §
5-7-80 (2004) (stating municipalities are empowered to enact ordinances to
abate public nuisances).

2.  As to
whether the circuit court erred in dismissing Singleton's claim for punitive
damages from the complaint:  S.C. Code
Ann. § 15-78-70(a) (2005) (stating the Tort Claims Act "constitutes the
exclusive remedy for any tort committed by an employee of a governmental entity");
S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-120(b) (2005) (stating punitive damages are precluded by
the Tort Claims Act). 

3.  As to
Singleton's remaining issues:  West v.
Newberry Elec. Coop., 357 S.C. 537,
543, 593 S.E.2d 500, 503 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding an issue that is neither
addressed by the circuit court in its final order nor raised by way of a Rule
59(e), SCRCP, motion is not preserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER,
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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