BJR contend that, even if the emails were in “electronic storage,” the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment as to them should be affirmed because they did not engage in a violation of section 2701. We agree. In its order granting summary judgment to Respondents, the circuit court held that “regardless of this Court’s findings as to whether any violation of 18 USC § 2701 occurred, Plaintiff cannot obtain any relief or recovery against Defendant Jennings or Defendant Cooke, as Defendant Jennings and Defendant Cooke are not persons who potentially engaged in such alleged ■violation.” Because Husband has not specifically challenged that ruling, it is the law of the case and requires affirmance. See Buckner v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 255 S.C. 159, 160-61, 177 S.E.2d 544, 544 (1970) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we conclude that the circuit
holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case holding that an unappealed ruling is the law of the case holding a trial judges unappealed procedural rulings become the law of the case holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes