Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-518 - Hartzler v. SC Department of Mental Health

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

Edwin K. Hartzler, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Mental Health, Respondent.


Appeal From Richland County
 L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-518
Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed December 9, 2010


AFFIRMED


Edwin K. Hartzler, pro se, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Daniel R. Settana and Erin M. Farrell, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Edwin K. Hartzler appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 56, SCRCP (explaining summary judgment is properly granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Hoard v. Roper Hosp., Inc., 387 S.C. 539, 545-46, 694 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2010) ("Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should be cautiously invoked so that a litigant will not be improperly deprived of trial on disputed factual issues."); Id. ("The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite the disposition of cases which do not require the services of a fact finder." (citing Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 659 S.E.2d 196 (Ct. App. 2008))); Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) (holding when an appellate court reviews the grant of summary judgment, it applies the same standard that governs the circuit court under Rule 56(c), SCRCP, and summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, J., KONDUROS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 


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