In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Orlando Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 25, 2012
• Docket: 2012-UP-026
• Status: Unpublished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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Orlando Williams, Respondent.

---

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

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-026  
Heard December 7, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2012

---

AFFIRMED

---

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr. all of Columbia, for Appellant.

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant and Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, both of Columbia; and Gordon Wade Cooper, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The State appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Orlando Williams as to whether he is a sexually violent predator, as defined in section 44-48-30(1) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2008).  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-100(A) (Supp. 2008) (requiring the State to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is a sexually violent predator); Hancock v. Mid-South Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 330, 673 S.E.2d 801, 802-03 (2009) ("This Court . . . has consistently held that where the federal standard applies or where a heightened burden of proof is required, there must be more than a scintilla of evidence in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment."); SSI Med. Servs., Inc., v. Cox, 301 S.C. 493, 497, 392 S.E.2d 789, 792 (1990) (stating in a summary judgment motion, "[t]he adverse party's response, including affidavits or as otherwise provided by the rule, must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial"); Nelson v. Piggly Wiggly Central, Inc., 390 S.C. 382, 390, 701 S.E.2d 776, 780 (Ct. App. 2010) (stating a non-moving party may not rely on speculation to defeat a motion for summary judgment); Baughman v. AT&T, 306 S.C. 101, 116, 410 S.E.2d 543, 545-46 (1991) ("'[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c)[, SCRCP,] mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" (first alteration by court) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986))).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.