Pugh v. CB&I AREVA MOX

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

Edward Pugh, Appellant,

v.

CB&I AREVA MOX Services, LLC and Globalpundits Technology Consultancy, LLC, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002321

Appeal From Aiken County Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-260 Submitted June 1, 2019 – Filed July 17, 2019

AFFIRMED

Edward Pugh, of Seneca, pro se.

Michael D. Carrouth and Benjamin Patrick James Dudek, both of Fisher & Phillips, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Kinghorn as ex rel. Mildred Ann Kinghorn Tr., dated 28 April 2004 v. Sakakini, 426 S.C. 147, 152, 825 S.E.2d 748, 750 (Ct. App. 2019) ("It has long been the policy of the court to encourage settlement in lieu of litigation, and courts

have usually enforced settlement agreements." (quoting Rock Smith Chevrolet, Inc. v. Smith, 309 S.C. 91, 93, 419 S.E.2d 841, 842 (Ct. App. 1992))); Rule 43(k), SCRCP ("No agreement between counsel affecting the proceedings in an action shall be binding unless . . . reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their counsel.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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