SCDSS v. Gary Z. Thomas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent, v. Tiffany Thomas, Gary Thomas, Connie Randall, and Jody Lowe, Defendants, Of whom Gary Thomas is the Appellant and Tiffany Thomas is a Respondent. In the interest of minors under the age of eighteen. Appellate Case No. 2019-000744 Appeal From Anderson County Karen F. Ballenger, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-339 Submitted September 15, 2021 – Filed September 20, 2021 AFFIRMED Gary Thomas, of Pelzer, pro se. Tiffany Marie Thomas, of Belton, pro se. Kristin Kelly Millonzi, of Anderson, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services. John Marshall Swails, Jr., of Greenville, for the Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM: Gary Thomas appeals an April 8, 2019 family court order denying his Rule 60, SCRCP, motion. On appeal, he argues the family court erred in its August 9, 2017 merits order. Thomas did not timely appeal the August 9, 2017 merits order because he did not serve the notice of appeal within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order. See Rule 203(b)(3), SCACR (providing a notice of appeal from the family court shall be served on all respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment). Thus, Father's issue on appeal is not properly before this court. Moreover, because Father did not raise any issue related to the April 8, 2019 order on appeal in his appellate brief, we find he has abandoned any challenge to this order. See Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered [on appeal] which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal."); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (considering an issue abandoned because the appellant failed to provide pertinent argument or supporting authority). AFFIRMED. 1 KONDUROS, HILL, and HEWITT, 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.
