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
Michael David Coffey, Appellant,
Lisa A. Webb n/k/a Lisa Strid, Respondent.
Appeal From Greenville County
Alex Kinlaw, Jr., Family Court Judge
Robert N. Jenkins, Sr., Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-536
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed December 5, 2011
DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART
Michael D. Coffey, of Greenville, pro se.
James D. Calmes, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Don J. Stevenson, of Greenville, for Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM: Michael David Coffey (Father) appeals from two separate family court orders. First, Father appeals the family court's pre-trial order setting a date certain for the hearing on Father's complaint for change of custody, arguing the family court nullified its jurisdiction by committing fraud. Second, Father appeals the family court's final order dismissing his complaint for change of custody, arguing the family court did not have subject matter jurisdiction due to his pending appeal of the pre-trial order. We dismiss Father's appeal of the pre-trial order and affirm the family court's final order pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to Father's appeal of the pre-trial order: Tatnall v. Gardner, 350 S.C. 135, 138, 564 S.E.2d 377, 379 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining an order which does not put a final end to the case, establish any principle which will finally affect the merits of the case, or deprive a party of any benefit which he may have at a final hearing is not appealable); Shields v. Martin Marietta Corp., 303 S.C. 469, 470, 402 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1991) (explaining an order restoring a case to the active docket is not directly appealable).
2. As to whether the family court had subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss Father's complaint: Brown v. Greenwood Sch. Dist. 50 Bd. of Tr., 344 S.C. 522, 524-25, 544 S.E.2d 642, 643 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Where an order is interlocutory, and thus not appealable, the notice of intent to appeal does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court.").
DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.