Jiles v. SCDEW

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 10, 2021
• Docket: 2019-001033
• Status: Unpublished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

Cortez M. Jiles, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce and House of Raeford Farms, Inc.,

Of Which South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001033

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-398 Submitted October 1, 2021 – Filed November 10, 2021

DISMISSED

Benjamin Thomas Cook and Paul R. Famolari, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Jody Richard Faulks, of South Carolina Legal Services, of Greenwood; and Jack E. Cohoon, of Burnette Shutt & McDaniel, PA, of Columbia, both for Respondent. PER CURIAM: The South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce appeals the order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) reversing the dismissal of Cortez M. Jiles's claim for unemployment insurance benefits. We dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(A)(1) (Supp. 2020) (providing for judicial review by this court of "a final decision" of the ALC); Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envt'l Control, 387 S.C. 265, 267, 692 S.E.2d 894, 895 (2010) ("A final judgment disposes of the whole subject matter of the action or terminates the particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined."); id. at 267, 692 S.E.2d at 894 (stating that "[i]f there is some further act which must be done by the court prior to a determination of the rights of the parties, the order is interlocutory" and not immediately appealable).

DISMISSED.1

KONDUROS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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