Howard v. Burch
| Decision Date | 12 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A1658,A93A1658 |
| Parties | HOWARD v. BURCH. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Edgar W. Howard, pro se.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Neal B. Childers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, an inmate, filed a pro se action denominated a "tort action" against appellee, a correctional officer at the facility where appellant was housed. Appellant alleged in the action that appellee was liable for libel and slander for writing false disciplinary reports. The case was set for a hearing on a November 1992 non-jury calendar, but due to the volume of cases on that calendar, appellant's case was tentatively rescheduled for January 1993. Appellee subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that appellee was immune from suit pursuant to the Georgia Tort Claims Act, OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq. Appellant did not respond to the motion and the court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss On march 29, 1993. The trial judge found that appellee was an employee of the Georgia Department of Corrections, that his actions were related to the performance of his official duties and that appellant's action was barred by the Georgia Tort Claims Act. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from "the decision of this court ... in his refusal to hear this case and hold a hearing and render a decision in the above styled case...."
Although appellant's notice of appeal is deficient in failing to specify the order from which the appeal is taken, we will give appellant, as a pro se litigant, the benefit of the doubt and treat his appeal as being taken from the March 29, 1993 order dismissing his case. Consequently, appellee's request that the appeal be dismissed is denied.
The Georgia Tort Claims Act Collier v. Whitworth, 205 Ga.App. 758, 759, 423 S.E.2d 440 (1992). Accordingly, we find no error with the trial court's dismissal of appellant's action.
Appellant's argument that the trial court should have held a hearing on appellee's motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mattox v. Bailey
...act falls within one of the exceptions set forth in OCGA § 50-21-24." (Punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Howard v. Burch, 210 Ga.App. 515, 516, 436 S.E.2d 573 (1993). In the instant case, the alleged tortious act falls within the exception found in OCGA § 50-21-24(7), which specifica......
-
Mosier v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, A94A1100
...presents nothing for appellate review since the record does not reflect that Mosier made any request for recusal. Howard v. Burch, 210 Ga.App. 515, 516, 436 S.E.2d 573 (1993). 2. Next, Mosier claims the trial court erred in refusing to allow his complaint to be filed. "When a civil action i......
- Hammock v. State, A93A1511
-
Ware v. Fidelity Acceptance Corp.
...not required to hold a hearing on the motion to strike and motion for judgment on the pleadings. USCR 6.3; see also Howard v. Burch, 210 Ga.App. 515, 436 S.E.2d 573 (1993). Accordingly, Ware's claims involving the motion to set aside have no 2. In his second enumeration of error, Ware argue......