Bell v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Annotate this Case

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

James "Cal" Bell, Othella Bernard, Katherina Bowyer, Linda M. W. Bratton, Ann T. Bridges, Rance C. Cobb, Jeannie B. Croxton, Bernetha L. Culbreath, William K. Dreyer, Jacqueline D. Farr, Ruth Fritts, Nancy Glenn, Etta Jane Jones, Geneva M. Martin, Mary H. McCabe, Beverly McClanahan, Max D. Randolph, Carolyn McIver Smith, Maggie G. Williams, and Paula Woodlief, Respondents,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections and Palmetto Unified School District No. 1, Defendants,

Of Whom South Carolina Department of Corrections is the Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-257
Submitted May 1, 2008 Filed May 14, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Lake Eric Summers and Malone Thompson Summers, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

W. Allen Nickles, III, and Dona L. Guffey, both of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  South Carolina Department of Corrections appeals the circuit court's order directing the Office of Human Resources to reinstate a grievance for a hearing before the State Employee Grievance Committee.  We dismiss[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Leviner v. Sonoco Prods. Co., 339 S.C. 492, 494, 530 S.E.2d 127, 128 (2000); Montjoy v. Asten-Hill Dryer Fabrics, 316 S.C. 52, 52, 446 S.E.2d 618, 618 (1994); Owens v. Canal Wood Corp., 281 S.C. 491, 492, 316 S.E.2d 385, 385 (1984); Hunt v. Whitt, 279 S.C. 343, 343, 306 S.E.2d 621, 622 (1983) (all finding a circuit court order remanding a case for additional proceedings before an administrative agency is not directly appealable). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.