THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
National City Bank, Respondent,
Carol A. Hemelt, Appellant.
Appeal From York County
John Buford Grier, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-647
Submitted October 6, 2003 – Filed November 6, 2003
Carol A. Hemelt, for Appellant
J. Ronald Jones, Jr. of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: National City Bank brought this action against Carol A. Hemelt demanding judgment for overdue credit card debt. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank, finding Hemelt owed the sum of $7,803.05 plus interest and the cost of the legal action. Hemelt appeals. We find the issues presented in this appeal are manifestly without merit and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001) (“The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite disposition of cases which do not require the services of a fact finder.”); Anders v. S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 307 S.C. 371, 373,415 S.E.2d 406, 407 (Ct. App. 1992) (“It is well established that summary judgment should be granted ‘. . . in cases in which plain, palpable and indisputable facts exist on which reasonable minds cannot differ.’”) (quoting Main v. Corley, 281 S.C. 525, 526, 316 S.E.2d 406, 407 (1984)); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 529 S.E.2d 710 (2000) (stating where a verdict is not reasonably possible under the facts presented, summary judgment is proper); Baughman v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 115, 410 S.E.2d 537, 545 (1991) (stating that once the party seeking summary judgment meets the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party must “‘do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts’ but ‘must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’”) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538, 552 (1986)) (emphasis in original)); Bayle v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 128, 542 S.E.2d 736, 742 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating the trial court’s rulings in matters involving discovery will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion); Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439 (2002) (stating nonmoving party to summary judgment motion “must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is not merely engaged in a ‘fishing expedition.’”) (internal quotation marks omitted)
GOOLSBY, HUFF, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.