Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-206 - Truesdale v. Charleston County Sheriff's Department

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

Isaiah Truesdale, Jr., Appellant,

v.

Charleston County Sheriff's Department, Respondent.


Appeal From Charleston County
  Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-206
Submitted March 1, 2010 – Filed March 15, 2010   


APPEAL DISMISSED


Thomas R. Goldstein, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Joseph Dawson, III, Bernard E. Ferrara, Jr., Bernice M. Jenkins, and Austin A. Bruner, all of North Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Isaiah Truesdale appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute.  We dismiss[1] Truesdale's appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR (providing (1) a party wishing to appeal an order of the circuit court must serve a notice of appeal on all respondents "within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment" and (2) a timely Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend judgment stays the time for appeal until the appellant receives "written notice of entry of the order granting or denying such motion");  Rule 203(d)(3), SCACR (providing an untimely notice of appeal shall be dismissed); Rule 77(d), SCRCP ("Immediately upon the entry of an order or judgment the clerk shall serve a notice of the entry by first class mail upon every party affected thereby . . . .  Such mailing is sufficient notice for all purposes for which notice of the entry of an order or judgment is required by these rules."); Ex parte Morris, 367 S.C. 56, 64, 624 S.E.2d 649, 653 (2006) (holding counsel's statements and arguments regarding the facts of a case are not admissible evidence and will not be considered on appeal).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.


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