Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-490 - Carter v. SCDC

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

Charles Ray Carter, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


Appeal From Richland County
 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-490
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed November 3, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Charles Ray Carter, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM: Charles Ray Carter appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his civil complaint against the Department of Corrections (the Department) for (1) violating the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10 to -220 (2005), and (2) violating his rights by modifying, altering, or amending his sentence after the term of court ended, arguing the circuit court erred in granting the Department's motion for summary judgment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 56(c), SCRCP ("[Summary] judgment . . . shall be rendered forthwith if 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."); State v. Bennett, 375 S.C. 165, 174, 650 S.E.2d 490, 495 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Because the South Carolina Code of Laws is the controlling authority for classifications, definitions and penalties for criminal offenses, a statute listed on a sentencing sheet, and not a CDR code, will dictate a criminal's sentence."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-100(a) (2005) (Stating all actions initiated under the S.C. Tort Claims Act must be commenced "within two years after the loss was or should have been discovered").    

AFFIRMED.

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


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