Scott v. Windham

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Alphonso Scott, Appellant, v. Roland Windham, Charleston County Administrator, Christine O. Durant, Director of Operation, Charleston Center, Samuel B. Glover, Director, State of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services, Respondents. Appeal From Charleston County J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-621 Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed November 12, 2008 AFFIRMED Alphonso Scott, of Ravenel, pro se, for Appellant. Bernard E. Ferrara, Jr., of North Charleston; Teresa A. Knox, Deputy Director for Legal Services, Tommy Evans, Jr., Legal Counsel, and J. Benjamin Aplin, Legal Counsel, all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Alphonso Scott appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his request for injunctive relief for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, and other issues relating to the dismissal. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Spence v. Spence, 368 S.C. 106, 116, 628 S.E.2d 869, 874 (2006) (stating in deciding whether the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss, the appellate court must consider whether the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, states any valid claim for relief).[2] AFFIRMED. Williams, Pieper, and Geathers, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. [2] As dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is dispositive, we need not address the other issues relating to the trial court’s order. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).