Powell v. Knology of Charleston, Inc.

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

Jack Powell, Appellant,

v.

Knology of Charleston, Inc., Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001035

Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-060
Submitted January 1, 2019 – Filed February 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

Jack Powell, of Mount Pleasant, pro se.

Benjamin B. Davis and Helen F. Hiser, both of McAngus
Goudelock & Courie, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jack Powell appeals the circuit court's grant of summary
judgment to Knology of Charleston, Inc. (Knology), arguing the court erred (1) by
denying his motion for recusal, (2) in its handling of discovery issues, and (3) by
granting summary judgment.1 We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities:

As to Issue 1: Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557
S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without
supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented
for review."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006)
(ruling an issue "listed in [the] statement of issues on appeal" but not addressed in
the brief was abandoned).

As to Issue 2: Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. Robinson, 416 S.C. 517, 536, 787
S.E.2d 485, 495 (2016) ("A trial court's rulings in matters related to discovery
generally will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of
discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's order is
controlled by an error of law or when there is no evidentiary support for the trial
court's factual conclusions."); Wilson v. Walker, 340 S.C. 531, 538 n.2, 532 S.E.2d
19, 22 n.2 (Ct. App. 2000) ("[D]ue process requires that a litigant be placed on
notice of the issues [that] the court will consider to afford the litigant an
opportunity to be heard.").

As to Issue 3: BPS, Inc. v. Worthy, 362 S.C. 319, 324, 608 S.E.2d 155, 158 (Ct.
App. 2005) ("When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, the
appellate court applies the same standard [that] governs the trial court under Rule
56(c), SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.");
Rule 56(e), SCRCP ("When a motion for summary judgment is made and
supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as
otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial."); Hall v. Fedor, 349 S.C. 169, 175, 561 S.E.2d 654, 657
(Ct. App. 2002) ("Our appellate courts have interpreted Rule 56(e) to mean
materials used to support or refute a motion for summary judgment must be those
[that] would be admissible in evidence."); Alltel Commc'ns, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of
Revenue, 399 S.C. 313, 319 n.2, 731 S.E.2d 869, 872 n.2 (2012)
("[C]ross[-]motions for summary judgment[] . . . authorize the court to assume that
there is no evidence [that] needs to be considered other than that which has been

1
In his brief to this court, Powell raises thirteen interrelated issues. After a
thorough review of the arguments in Powell's brief, we have consolidated the
issues into the three presented here.
filed by the parties." (first alteration by court) (quoting Harrison W. Corp. v. Gulf
Oil Co., 662 F.2d 690, 692 (10th Cir. 1981))); Chakrabarti v. City of Orangeburg,
403 S.C. 308, 314, 743 S.E.2d 109, 112 (Ct. App. 2013) ("A plaintiff must prove
three elements to recover on a claim for negligence: (1) a duty of care owed by the
defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission;
and (3) damage proximately resulting from the breach."); Solanki v. Wal-Mart
Store No. 2806, 410 S.C. 229, 237, 763 S.E.2d 615, 619 (Ct. App. 2014)
("Negligence is the failure to exercise due care, while gross negligence is the
failure to exercise slight care."); Doe v. Bishop of Charleston, 407 S.C. 128, 139,
754 S.E.2d 494, 500 (2014) ("An employer may be liable for negligent supervision
when (1) his employee intentionally harms another when he is on the employer's
premises, is on premises he is privileged to enter only as employee, or is using the
employer's chattel; (2) the employer knows or has reason to know he has the ability
to control the employee; and (3) the employer knows or has reason to know of the
necessity and opportunity to exercise such control."); Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369
S.C. 555, 569, 633 S.E.2d 505, 512 (2006) (affirming summary judgment in favor
of a defendant because the plaintiffs "failed to offer evidence on all of the elements
of" their claim).

AFFIRMED.2

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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