Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-319 - Bennett v. State

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Ron C. Bennett,        Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, County of Marion, and Magistrate Lunette Cox,        Respondents.


Appeal From Marion County
James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-319
Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed May 14, 2004  


AFFIRMED


Ron C. Bennett, of Marion, pro se, for Appellant.

Robert E. Lee and Amy Wise, of Forence, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Ron C. Bennett appeals, contending the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to the respondents the State of South Carolina, the County of Marion, and Magistrate Lunette Cox.  We affirm pursuant to Rules 215 and 220(2), SCACR, and S.C. Code Ann. § 14-8-250 (Supp. 2003), along with the following authorities:  Taylor v. Medenica, 331 S.C. 575, 582, 503 S.E.2d 458, 462 (1998) (noting an issue which is raised but not argued in brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal); Muir v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 336 S.C. 266, 298, 519 S.E.2d 583, 600 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding conclusory arguments may be treated as abandoned); Englert, Inc. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 315 S.C. 300, 304, 433 S.E.2d 871, 873 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting a conclusory argument does not present any issue for consideration on appeal); Moody v. McLellan, 295 S.C. 157, 162, 367 S.E.2d 449, 452 (Ct. App. 1988) (stating an alternative ruling of the trial court in granting summary judgment that was not excepted to constitutes a basis for affirming the trial court and is not reviewable on appeal).         

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.