THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

John P. Brown,        Appellant,

v.

Spartanburg County, Spartanburg County Public Defender’s Office, Spartanburg County Detention Facility,        Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-126
Submitted February 10, 2003 – Filed February 18, 2003

AFFIRMED

John P. Brown, of Fairfax, pro se.

William B. Darwin and Ginger Goforth, of Spartanburg, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to issues I & IV: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-40 (Supp. 2001) (stating state agencies are liable for their torts, subject to certain immunities); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(1), (5), (23), (25) (Supp. 2001) (stating state agencies and their employees are not liable for losses resulting from: 1) “administrative action[s] or inaction[s] of a legislative, judicial, or quasi-judicial nature”; 2) the exercise of discretion or judgment; 3) the institution or prosecution of any judicial or administrative proceeding; or 4) the duty to supervise, protect, control, or exercise custody over an inmate).

As to issues II, V, & VI: Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560, 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) (holding the “[d]enial of a [motion to dismiss] does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case”); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (stating summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law); Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001) (holding summary judgment is granted “when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”); McClanahan v. Richland County Council, 350 S.C. 433, 441, 567 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2002) (holding appellant has no right to discovery where discovery would not aid the trial court in rendering its decision whether to grant summary judgment); see also Dunn v. Dunn, 298 S.C. 499, 502, 381 S.E.2d 734, 735 (1989) (holding a trial court’s “rulings on discovery matters will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion.”  (emphasis added)); Belk of Spartanburg, S.C., Inc. v. Thompson, 337 S.C. 109, 127, 522 S.E.2d 357, 366 (Ct. App. 1999) (“The burden is upon the party appealing from the order to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion.”); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding “[m]ere allegations of error are not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion”).

As to issue III: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-30(f) (Supp. 2001) (defining “loss,” under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act as, “bodily injury, disease, death, or damage to tangible property, including lost wages and economic loss to the person” suffering the injury); see S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-20(A)(1) (1985) (stating a person who has been convicted of a crime may file an application for post-conviction relief if the person’s conviction is: 1) in violation of the Constitution of the Untied States or the Constitution or laws of South Carolina; or 2) otherwise subject to collateral attack on any ground of alleged error).

AFFIRMED.¹

CURETON, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.