Spalt v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

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
Melissa Spalt, Respondent,
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 Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2015-002535
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Harold W. Funderburk, Jr., Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-475
Submitted October 1, 2016 – Filed November 9, 2016
APPEAL DISMISSED
Frank L. Valenta, Jr., Philip S. Porter, and Brandy Anne
Duncan, all of the South Carolina Department of Motor
Vehicles, of Blythewood, for Appellant.
Michael Vincent Laubshire, of the Laubshire Law Firm,
LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles appeals an
order by the Administrative Law Court (ALC) reversing the Office of Motor
Vehicle Hearings' decision to deny Melissa Spalt's motion for a continuance and
dismiss her contested case challenging the implied consent suspension of her
driving privileges. Because the ALC's order is not a final decision, we dismiss this
appeal. See Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl.
Control, 387 S.C. 265, 266, 692 S.E.2d 894, 894 (2010) ("The right of appeal
arises from and is controlled by statutory law."); Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v.
Crane Nat'l Vendors Div. of Unidynamics Corp., 319 S.C. 556, 558, 462 S.E.2d
858, 859 (1995) ("The general rule of statutory construction is that a specific
statute prevails over a more general one."); Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 387 S.C. at
266, 692 S.E.2d at 894 ("[A]lthough [section] 14-3-330 permits appeals from
interlocutory orders . . . , that section is inapplicable in cases where a party seeks
review of a decision of the ALC because the more specific statute, [section] 1-23-
610, limits review to final decisions of the ALC."); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-
610(A)(1) (Supp. 2015) (providing for judicial review by this court of "a final
decision" of the ALC); Charlotte-Mecklenburg, 387 S.C. at 267, 692 S.E.2d at 895("A final judgment disposes of the whole subject matter of the action or terminates
the particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by
execution what has been determined."); id. at 267, 692 S.E.2d at 894 ("If there is
some further act which must be done by the court prior to a determination of the
rights of the parties, the order is interlocutory.").
APPEAL DISMISSED.1
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.