Adams v. Richland County Sheriff's Department

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 9, 2022
• Docket: 2019-001175
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

George M. Adams, Appellant,

v.

Richland County Sheriff's Department, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001175

Appeal From Richland County Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-064 Submitted January 1, 2022 – Filed February 9, 2022

AFFIRMED

George M. Adams, pro se.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Lindemann & Davis, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: George M. Adams appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his causes of action based on his failure to pay the required filing fee. On appeal, Adams argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We hold the circuit court did not err because there was no statute or constitutional provision that authorized Adams to proceed in forma pauperis and his causes of action did not involve any fundamental rights. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Ex parte Martin, 321 S.C. 533, 535, 471 S.E.2d 134, 134-35 (1995) ("In the absence of a statutory provision allowing the general waiver of filing fees, we conclude motions to proceed in forma pauperis may only be granted where specifically authorized by statute or required by constitutional provisions."); id. at 535, 471 S.E.2d at 135 ("Further, where certain fundamental rights are involved, the Constitution requires that an indigent be allowed access to the courts.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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