McGeary v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

Full title: John McGeary, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles…

Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 24, 2012

2012-UP-575 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-575

10-24-2012

John McGeary, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles and South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants, Of whom South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles is the Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2011-200827

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., and Kathy Ridenoure Schillaci, both of the Law Offices of Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant. Philip S. Porter, Frank L. Valenta, Jr., and Linda Annette Grice, all of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted September 3, 2012

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Court Judge

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., and Kathy Ridenoure Schillaci, both of the Law Offices of Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Philip S. Porter, Frank L. Valenta, Jr., and Linda Annette Grice, all of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

John McGeary appeals an order issued by the Administrative Law Court (the ALC) affirming a decision of the Office of Motor Vehicle Hearings (the Office) sustaining the suspension of his driver's license. On appeal, McGeary contends the ALC erred in affirming (1) the Office's dismissal of his case because it amounted to improper burden shifting and (2) the Office's denial of his motion to reconsider. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:¹

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

1.As to whether the ALC erred in finding the Office's dismissal did not amount to improper burden shifting: Home Med. Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 382 S.C. 556, 562, 677 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2009) ("As in other appellate matters, we require issue preservation in administrative appeals."); Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) (noting an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the agency to be preserved for appellate review).

2.As to whether the ALC erred in affirming the Office's denial of McGeary's motion for reconsideration: Kleckley v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 338 S.C. 131, 138, 526 S.E.2d 218, 221 (2000) (noting an issue must be addressed by both the trial court and an intermediate appellate court to be properly preserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C. J, and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ, concur