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), SCARC.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment prior to the completion of discovery: Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439 (2003) (holding the nonmoving party must show a likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence); Gauld v. O'Shaugnessy Realty Co., 380 S.C. 548, 559, 671 S.E.2d 79, 85 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding a failure of proof on an essential element of the case renders all other facts immaterial).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to BB&T: Estate of Adair v. L-J, Inc., 372 S.C. 154, 160, 641 S.E.2d 63, 66 (Ct. App. 2007) (indicating a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser except the duty not to do him willful or wanton injury).

3. As to whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City of Beaufort: Miller v. City of Camden, 329 S.C. 310, 314, 494 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1997) ("One who controls the use of property has a duty of care not to harm others by its use. Conversely, one who has no control owes no duty." (citations omitted)); Gauld, 380 S.C. at 559, 671 S.E.2d at 85 ("A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.