Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-057 - Knight v. Trundy

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

Mildred C. Knight and Bobby Knight, III, Appellants,

v.

Sean K. Trundy, Keith I. McCarty, Amanda & Roy Maybank, Pratt-Thomas Epting & Walker, & Maybank, LLC as Law Firms, Respondents.


Appeal From Charleston County
J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-057
Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed February 15, 2011


AFFIRMED


Mildred C. Knight and Bobby Knight, III, pro se, of North Charleston, for Appellants.

Andrew W. Countryman, Dawes Cook, and Roy Pearce Maybank, all of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Mildred C. Knight and Bobby Knight, III, pro se, appeal the granting of Sean K. Trundy's, I. Keith McCarty's, Roy Maybank's, Amanda Maybank's, Pratt-Thomas, Epting and Walker Law Firm's, and Maybank Law Firm's motion to dismiss Knight's legal malpractice and civil conspiracy complaint.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities: Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP (stating a complaint is to be dismissed for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-36-100(B) (Supp. 2010) ("[P]laintiff must file as part of the complaint an affidavit of an expert witness who must specify at least one negligent act or omission claimed to exist and the factual basis for each claim . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-36-100(C)(1) (Supp. 2010) (stating that upon defendant's motion to dismiss, a professional negligence claim should be dismissed for failure to submit such an affidavit). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


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