Gittens v. Rakowsky

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
Jamaal Gittens, Appellant,
v.
John R. Rakowsky, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2016-001627
Appeal From Lexington County
Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-369
Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 27, 2019
AFFIRMED
Jamaal Gittens, of Charlotte, North Carolina, pro se.
Alfred Johnston Cox and Jessica Ann Waller, both of
Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA; and Alonzo Jonathon
Holloway, of Richardson Patrick Westbrook &
Brickman, LLC, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Jamaal Gittens, pro se, appeals the circuit court's order granting
Judge John Rakowsky's motion to dismiss. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 4(d)(1), SCRCP ("The summons and
complaint must be served together. The plaintiff shall furnish the person making
service with such copies as are necessary. . . . Service shall be made . . . [u]pon an
individual other than a minor under the age of 14 years or an incompetent person,
by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally or by
leaving copies thereof at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by delivering a copy
to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.");
Rule 4(d)(8), SCRCP ("Service of a summons and complaint upon a defendant of
any class referred to in paragraph (1) or (3) of this subdivision of this rule may be
made by the plaintiff or by any person authorized to serve process pursuant to Rule
4(c), including a sheriff or his deputy, by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested and delivery restricted to the addressee.1 Service is effective upon the
date of delivery as shown on the return receipt.").2
AFFIRMED.3
SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
In the instant matter, Gittens sent the summons and complaint by certified mail;
however, delivery was not restricted and someone other than the addressee signed
for receipt of the delivery of the summons and complaint. Therefore, service was
not proper under Rule 4(d)(8).
2
We further find the circuit court did not err in finding as an alternate sustaining
ground that Judge Rakowsky was entitled to judicial immunity. See O'Laughlin v.
Windham, 330 S.C. 379, 382, 498 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Judicial
immunity affords absolute immunity from suit."). As a municipal judge, Judge
Rakowsky had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Gittens's case. See S.C. Code
Ann. § 56-5-6150 (2018) ("All municipal courts of the State may try and determine
criminal cases involving violations of this chapter occurring within the respective
limits of such municipalities when the penalty prescribed by this chapter for such
violations does not exceed thirty days' imprisonment nor one hundred dollars' fine
and may have trial jurisdiction over such criminal cases the same as magistrates.");
S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-5(c) (2017) ("Any municipality may prosecute any of its
cases in any magistrate court in the county in which such municipality is situate
upon approval by the governing body of the county."); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-7-10(2018) ("The service of the uniform traffic ticket shall vest all traffic, recorders',
and magistrates' courts with jurisdiction to hear and to dispose of the charge for
which the ticket was issued and served.").
3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.