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: Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439 (2003) (noting that to avoid summary judgment, "the nonmoving party must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is `not merely engaged in a "fishing expedition"'" (quoting Baughman v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 112, 410 S.E.2d 537, 544 (1991))); Schnellmann v. Roettger, 373 S.C. 379, 382, 645 S.E.2d 239, 241 (2007) ("To establish a cause of action for fraud, the following elements must be proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) either knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of its truth or falsity; (5) intent that the representation be acted upon; (6) the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer's reliance on its truth; (8) the hearer's right to rely thereon; and (9) the hearer's consequent and proximate injury." (emphasis added)); id. ("The failure to prove any element of fraud . . . is fatal to the claim."); AMA Mgmt. Corp. v. Strasburger, 309 S.C. 213, 222, 420 S.E.2d 868, 874 (Ct. App. 1992) ("[T]he plaintiff must allege and prove the following essential elements to establish liability for negligent misrepresentation: (1) the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant had a pecuniary interest in making the statement; (3) the defendant owed a duty of care to see that he communicated truthful information to the plaintiff; (4) the defendant breached that duty by failing to exercise due care; (5) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation; and (6) the plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss as the proximate result of his reliance upon the representation." (emphasis added)); Jefferies v. Phillips, 316 S.C. 523, 527, 451 S.E.2d 21, 23 (Ct. App. 1994) ("To be actionable under the [South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act], an unfair or deceptive practice or act must adversely affect the public interest."); King v. Oxford, 282 S.C. 307, 312, 318 S.E.2d 125, 128 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The court will not protect the person who, with full opportunity to do so, will not protect himself."); McCall v. Finley, 294 S.C. 1, 4, 362 S.E.2d 26, 28 (Ct. App. 1987) ("[W]hatever doesn't make any difference, doesn't matter.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, A.C.J., and KONDUROS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.