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
Amadou Diabate, Appellant,
Appeal From Charleston County
Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-361
Submitted March 19, 2004 – Filed June 4, 2004
Amadou Diabate, of North Charleston, Pro se.
Robert H. Hood, Robert H. Hood, Jr., Roy P. Maybank, and Deborah Harrison Sheffield, all of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Diabate appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on Diabate’s failure to provide expert testimony. We affirm  pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR and the following authorities: Sheppard v. Kimbrough, 282 S.C. 348, 356. 318 S.E.2d 573, 579 (Ct. App. 1984) (stating on a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, there is usually no genuine issue of material fact unless the plaintiff presents expert testimony on the standard of care and its breach by the defendant); Henson v. International Paper Co., ___ S.C. ___, ___, 594 S.E.2d 499, 503 (Ct. App. 2004) (“Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR requires an appellant’s initial brief to contain a statement of each of the issues presented for review.”); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) (“No point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal."); Glasscock Inc., v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) (finding where an issue is not argued within the body of the brief but is only a short conclusory statement, the issue is abandoned on appeal); Fields v. Melrose Ltd. Partnership, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating issues on appeal which are not argued in the brief are deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court); State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 265, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) (finding a pro se litigant has full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of the law); Goodson v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 295 S.C. 400, 403, 368 S.E.2d 687, 689 (“Lack of familiarity with legal proceedings is unacceptable and the court will not hold a layman to any lesser standard than is applied to an attorney.”).
HOWARD, BEATTY, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
 Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.