Jones v. Sumter County Sheriff's Office

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 15, 2011
• Docket: 2011-UP-058
• Status: Unpublished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

Charles Jones, in his capacity as Personal Representative for the Estate of Boyce Jones, Appellant,

v.

Sumter County Sheriff's Office, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Sumter County
 R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-058
Submitted February 1, 2011 – Filed February 15, 2011

---

AFFIRMED

---

J. David Weeks, of Sumter, for Appellant.

G. Murrell Smith, Jr., of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles Jones, the personal representative for the estate of Boyce Jones, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Sumter County Sheriff's Office (the Office).  On appeal, Jones argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the Office acted in a grossly negligent manner.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Edwards v. Lexington Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 386 S.C. 285, 290, 688 S.E.2d 125, 128 (2010) ("When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, an appellate court applies the same standard used by the trial court"); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (stating summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(6) (2005) (stating a governmental entity is immune from liability under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (the Act) for the methods the police utilize while providing protection); Huggins v. Metts, 371 S.C. 621, 624, 640 S.E.2d 465, 466-67 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding police immune from liability under the Act for acts concerning the police methods used while providing protection).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 

---

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