Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-353 - McKnight v. Montgomery

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

Sandra and Marvin McKnight, Appellants,

v.

Roman Montgomery, Respondent.


Appeal From Richland County
James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-353
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 29, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Sandra McKnight and Marvin McKnight, pro se, both of Columbia.

Roman Montgomery, pro se, of Columbia.

PER CURIAM:  Sandra and Marvin McKnight appeal the order of the circuit court dismissing their appeal from the magistrate's court.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Medlock v. One 1985 Jeep Cherokee VIN 1JCWB7828FT129001, 322 S.C. 127, 132, 470 S.E.2d 373, 376 (1996) ("The appellant has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record upon which to make a decision."); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 208, 659 S.E.2d 196, 208 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding that a "pled and argued" issue was unpreserved for review when the circuit court failed to rule on it and no Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion was filed).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.


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