Chatles Major v. SC Department of Mental Health

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 R.
Major, Appellant

v.

S.C. Department
of Mental Health & Patrick Harris Hospital; Mr. George Gintoli, sued in
his individual capacity and in his official capacity; Sharon Fowler, sued in
her individual capacity and official capacity; Carolina Emergency Physicians
PA, and Dr. Stephen Burkholtz & Dr. Benjamin Crumpler, both sued in their
individual  and in their official capacities; Greenville County Sheriff's
Department & Officer Moon & Sergeant Lowary; Greenville Memorial
Hospital and two unnamed social workers; Harriet J. Major, sued in her
individual capacity and Kenneth Porter, sued in his individual and
professional working capacity, Defendants,

of whom S.C.
Department of Mental Health, Patrick Harris Hospital, Mr. George Gintoli,
sued in his individual and in his official capacity, Sharon Fowler, sued in
her individual and official capacity, Greenville County Sheriff's Department,
Office Moon and Sergeant Lowary are Respondents.

Appeal From Greenville County

Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-521

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed
November 19, 2009

AFFIRMED

Charles Major, pro se, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Reginald  Gay, of Anderson, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles R. Major appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his causes of
action against the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (the Department)
for lack of prosecution due to ineffective service.  On appeal Major asserts the circuit court
erred in dismissing his causes of action for lack of prosecution due to
ineffective service because he served the Department with a copy of the summons
and complaint.[1]  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Doe v. Doe,
370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant
neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the
issue is not preserved for appellate review."); see also Noisette
v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (finding when a
trial court makes a general ruling on an issue, but does not address the
specific argument raised by the appellant and the appellant does not make a
motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling on
the argument, the appellate court cannot consider the argument on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS,
and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] This court need not address Appellant's remaining
arguments, as they are manifestly without merit. See Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR (stating that a
point that is manifestly without merit need not be addressed).

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