Hartzler v. Bob Sheheen

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

Edwin K. Hartzler, Appellant

v.

Bob Sheheen, SLED, Fred Pauer, Peggy Wadman, Michael Ferlauto, Thomas Scott, Bob Milling, Marilee Griswold, Andrew Hedgepath, Respondents.

                             

Appeal From Richland County
L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-189
Submitted April 1, 2011 Filed April 28, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Edwin K. Hartzler, pro se, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Daniel R. Settana, Jr., and Erin M. Farrell, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Edwin K. Hartzler appeals the circuit court's grant of Respondents' motion to dismiss.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code. Ann. § 44-17-630 (2002) ("A patient is entitled to a reexamination on the patient's own petition or that of any other interested person to the probate court of the country from which the patient was admitted."); HHHunt Corp. v. Town of Lexington,  389 S.C. 623, 632, 699 S.E.2d 699, 703 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In deciding whether the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss, the appellate court must consider whether the facts and inferences drawn from the facts alleged in the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, state any valid claim for relief.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., KONDUROS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 

 

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