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
Dominic Vaughn, Appellant,
City of Sumter, A Political Subdivision of the State of South Carolina, Sumter Merchants Association and Department of Transportation, Defendants,
Of Whom City of Sumter is the, Respondent.
Appeal From Sumter County
R. Ferrell Cothran, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-045
Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed February 2, 2011
Dwight C. Moore, of Sumter, for Appellant.
A. Johnston Cox, Daniel R. Settana and Andrew F. Lindemann, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: After suffering injuries in a car wreck, Dominic Vaughn sued the City of Sumter (the City), Sumter Merchants Association, and the Department of Transportation for negligence under the South Carolina Torts Claims Act. On appeal, Vaughn argues the trial court erred in granting the City's summary judgment motion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether Vaughn's amended complaint against the City was timely: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (2005) ("[A]ny action brought pursuant to [the Act] is forever barred unless an action is commenced within two years after the date the loss was or should have been discovered . . . ." ); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-30(f) (2005) ("'Loss' means bodily injury, disease, death, or damage to tangible property . . . ."); Wiggins v. Edwards, 314 S.C. 126, 128, 442 S.E.2d 169, 170 (1994) ("'The important date under the discovery rule is the date that a plaintiff discovers the injury, not the date of the discovery of the identity of another alleged wrongdoer.'") (citation omitted).
2. As to whether the amended complaint related back to the original pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(c), SCRCP: Duncan v. CRS Sirrine Engineers, Inc., 337 S.C. 537, 543-44, 524 S.E.2d 115, 119 (Ct. App. 1999) (finding an issue is unpreserved for our review when it is not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court or no motion to alter or amend judgment on that ground was filed).
HUFF and LOCKEMY, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.