Briket v. Blackwell

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 Janis and Jeromy Birket, Respondents, v. Walter L. Blackwell, III and Maureen Blackwell, Appellants. Appeal From Richland County John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-343 Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 30, 2010 APPEAL DISMISSED Maureen Blackwell and Walter L. Blackwell, III, both pro se, of Columbia, for Appellants. Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: On May 6, 2008, Janis and Jeromy Birket filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction based on Walter L. Blackwell, III and Maureen Blackwell's (collectively the Blackwells) harassment. On May 28, 2008, a permanent restraining order hearing was held, and the magistrate's court issued a restraining order effective until May 28, 2009. Thereafter, the circuit court affirmed the magistrate's court grant of a restraining order. The Blackwells now appeal to this court. The restraining order expired by its own terms on a May 28, 2009, thus we find a ruling on the issues pending before this court will have no practical effect on the parties to this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss[1] the appeal as moot. See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("An appellate court will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy."); see also Seabrook v. City of Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306, 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical effect upon existing controversy."). APPEAL DISMISSED. KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.