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
Ephrain Reliford, Jr., Appellant,
William J. Sussman, Respondent.
Appeal From Aiken County
Rodney A. Peeples, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-054
Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January 21, 2005
Ephrain Reliford, Jr., of Kershaw, pro se, for Appellant.
Maureen O. Floyd, of Augusta, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Reliford appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his action against his former attorney. Specifically, Reliford argues the trial court erred by ruling it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and his action was barred by res judicata. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:
As to Reliford’s contention that the trial court erred in ruling it did not have subject matter jurisdiction: see Reliford v. Sussman, Op. No. 2002-UP-305 (S.C. Ct. App. Filed April 29, 2002) (affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the original complaint due to the insufficiency of service of process); see also B.C. Huggins v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 252 S.C. 353, 357, 166 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1969) (“It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a decision of this court on a former appeal is the law of the case.”); Barth v. Barth, 293 S.C. 305, 308, 360 S.E.2d 309, 310 (1987) (“Ordinarily, the disposition of a case in the Court of Appeals when certiorari is not applied for nor granted becomes the law of the case.”).
As to Reliford’s contention that the trial court erred in ruling his action was barred by res judicata: see Laughon v. O’Braitis, 360 S.C. 520, 527, 602 S.E.2d 108, 112 (Ct. App. 2004) (“It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that material facts or questions which were directly in issue in a former action, and were there admitted or judicially determined, are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein, and that such facts or questions become res judicata and may not again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies, regardless of the form that the issue may take in the subsequent action.”)
ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.