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 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

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-575 Submitted September 3, 2012 – Filed October 24, 2012

AFFIRMED

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. 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.

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