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 R. Major, Appellant

v.

S.C. Department of Mental Health & Patrick Harris Hospital; Mr. George Gintoli, sued in his individual capacity and in his official capacity; Sharon Fowler, sued in her individual capacity and official capacity; Carolina Emergency Physicians PA, and Dr. Stephen Burkholtz & Dr. Benjamin Crumpler, both sued in their individual  and in their official capacities; Greenville County Sheriff's Department & Officer Moon & Sergeant Lowary; Greenville Memorial Hospital and two unnamed social workers; Harriet J. Major, sued in her individual capacity and Kenneth Porter, sued in his individual and professional working capacity, Defendants,

of whom S.C. Department of Mental Health, Patrick Harris Hospital, Mr. George Gintoli, sued in his individual and in his official capacity, Sharon Fowler, sued in her individual and official capacity, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, Office Moon and Sergeant Lowary are Respondents.

Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.� 2009-UP-521
Submitted November 2, 2009 � Filed November 19, 2009

AFFIRMED

Charles Major, pro se, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Reginald� Gay, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles R. Major appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his causes of action against the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (the Department) for lack of prosecution due to ineffective service.� On appeal Major asserts the circuit court erred in dismissing his causes of action for lack of prosecution due to ineffective service because he served the Department with a copy of the summons and complaint.[1]� We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:� Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."); see also Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (finding when a trial court makes a general ruling on an issue, but does not address the specific argument raised by the appellant and the appellant does not make a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling on the argument, the appellate court cannot consider the argument on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] This court need not address Appellant's remaining arguments, as they are manifestly without merit. See Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR (stating that a point that is manifestly without merit need not be addressed).

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