E. Rogers v. River Hills Limited Partner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cv-01540-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999062675].. [12-1966]

Appeal: 12-1966

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1966

E. CARROLL ROGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RIVER HILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; RIVER HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (4:09-cv-01540-JMC)

Submitted:

February 20, 2013

Decided:

March 13, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carmelo B. Sammataro, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY PA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William C. Wood, Jr.,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Columbia, South
Carolina; Susan P. MacDonald, Lindsey E. Hendrick, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1966

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
E. Carroll Rogers appeals the district court’s order
granting

summary

judgment

to

River

Hills

Limited

Partnership

(“the Partnership”) and River Hills Golf & Country Club of North
Myrtle

Beach,

action

Incorporated

for

breach

of

(“the

Corporation”),

easement

interference with contract.

agreement

in

his

and

civil

tortious

Finding no reversible error, we

affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de

novo,

drawing

reasonable

inferences

favorable to the non-moving party.

in

the

light

most

Dulaney v. Packaging Corp.

of Am., 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir. 2012).

Summary judgment is

proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.”
facts

that

governing

might
law

judgment.”
(1986).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
affect

will

the

outcome

properly

of

preclude

“Only disputes over
the

the

suit

entry

under
of

the

summary

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
To

withstand

a

motion

for

summary

judgment,

the

non-moving party must produce competent evidence to reveal the
existence

of

See Thompson

a

genuine

v.

Potomac

issue

of

Elec.

material

Power

Co.,

fact

312

for

F.3d

trial.

645,

649

(4th Cir. 2002) (“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not
suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of
2

Appeal: 12-1966

[the

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/13/2013

non-moving

party’s]

Pg: 3 of 4

case.”

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted)).
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment to the Partnership and the Corporation.

With respect

to Rogers’ claim for breach of easement agreement, we reject his
appellate

arguments

determination
containing

that

the

challenging
the

claim

purported

the

failed

easement

The

district

court

because

agreement

South Carolina’s statute of frauds.
(1991).

district

court’s

the

did

writing

not

satisfy

S. C. Code Ann. § 32-3-10

correctly

determined

that

the

writing did not sufficiently describe the portion or parcel of
the

servient

estate

to

be

affected

by

the

easement.

K & A Acquisition Grp., LLC v. Island Pointe, LLC, 682 S.E.2d
252,

262

(S.C.

(S.C. 2007).
writing’s
owned

2009);

v.

Koon,

642

S.E.2d

602,

604-05

We reject as meritless Rogers’ argument that the

description

only

Fici

one

parcel

was

sufficient

of

land

at

because

the

time

the
the

Partnership
writing

was

executed because this information is available only by reference
to

evidence

unsupported
that

the

extrinsic
by

the

writing

to

the

evidence
contained

location of the easement.

writing.

and
a

We

unexplained

sufficient

reject
Rogers’

description

as

both

argument
of

the

We also reject as lacking in any

principled explanation Rogers’ challenge to the district court’s
3

Appeal: 12-1966

Doc: 25

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

determination that the writing evinced an executory promise, not
a present intent to convey an easement.
We

further

reject

as

meritless

Rogers’

appellate

challenge to the district court’s disposition of his claim for
tortious interference.

His challenge is largely unresponsive to

the district court’s determination that the claim failed because
the

Partnership

and

the

Corporation

acted

in

good

faith

by

failing to acknowledge the existence of the easement, and he
fails to point to evidence establishing that the Partnership and
the

Corporation

lacked

a

justification

for

doing

so.

See Eldeco, Inc. v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist., 642 S.E.2d 726,
731 (S.C. 2007) (listing the elements of a claim for tortious
interference
without

with

merit

contract).

Rogers’

Finally,

remaining

we

reject

arguments

—

as

wholly

addressing

alternative defenses not ruled upon by the district court — for
overturning the court’s judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4