JONES v. SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 2011-UP-058. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Number: inscco20110216895
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 15, 2011
Summary: 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. 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 pur
Summary: 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. 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 purs..
More
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.
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 affirm1 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.
FootNotes
1. We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Source: Leagle
