Alonzo Jeter, III v. SCDSS ( 2022 )

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
Alonzo Jeter, III, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Social Services,
Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2019-001835
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-030
Submitted January 10, 2022 – Filed January 26, 2022
AFFIRMED
Alonzo C. Jeter, III, pro se.
Chad A. Mitchell, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Alonzo Jeter, III appeals the administrative law court's (ALC)
decision to affirm the South Carolina Department of Social Services' (DSS) Office
of Administrative Hearings' (OAH) dismissal of his request for a hearing to appeal
the determination he was required to pay $3,400 he improperly received in
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits as untimely. Jeter
asserts the ALC erred by (1) affirming OAH's decision that his request for a
hearing was untimely; (2) affirming DSS's decision that he was ineligible to
receive SNAP benefits; (3) affirming DSS's decision to seek reimbursement for the
$3,400 in SNAP benefits he received; and (4) abusing its discretion and violating
his rights of due process by denying him an opportunity to file a reply brief. We
affirm.
1. The ALC did not err in affirming OAH's decision that Jeter's request for a
hearing was untimely. "In an appeal from the decision of an administrative
agency, the Administrative Procedures Act provides the appropriate standard of
review." Original Blue Ribbon Taxi Corp. v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 380
S.C. 600, 604, 670 S.E.2d 674, 676 (Ct. App. 2008).
The court may not substitute its judgment for the
judgment of the agency as to the weight of the evidence
on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision
of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings.
The court may reverse or modify the decision if
substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced
because the administrative findings, inferences,
conclusions, or decisions are: (a) in violation of
constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the
statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful
procedure; (d) affected by other error of law; (e) clearly
erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary
or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or
clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5) (Supp. 2020).
DSS sent Jeter an overpayment demand letter dated December 11, 2013, informing
him that he had received an overpayment of $3,400 in SNAP benefits from
November 2011 through March 2013. The letter explained Jeter was ineligible to
receive SNAP benefits because he pled guilty to a felony drug conviction in
October 2004 and stated that he was required to pay back the $3,400 in SNAP
benefits he received. Jeter did not request a hearing on DSS's determination until
August 13, 2018, over four years after he received the overpayment demand letter.
Regulation 114-180(C)(1)(a) of the South Carolina Code (2012) mandates that
"[r]equests for [a] hearing must be filed with the caseworker or the OAH . . . within
ninety (90) days of notice of the adverse action for [SNAP benefits]." Thus, the
ALC did not err in affirming OAH's determination that Jeter's request for a hearing
was untimely.
2. Based on our determination the ALC did not err in affirming OAH's decision
that Jeter's request for a hearing was untimely, we need not address whether the
ALC erred in affirming DSS's decision that Jeter was ineligible to receive SNAP
benefits. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613,
518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate court need not review remaining
issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).
3. Based on our determination the ALC did not err in affirming OAH's decision
that Jeter's request for a hearing was untimely, we need not address whether the
ALC erred in affirming DSS's decision that it could seek reimbursement for the
SNAP benefits Jeter received. See id. (noting an appellate court need not review
remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the
appeal).
4. The ALC did not abuse its discretion or violate Jeter's due process rights by
denying him an opportunity to file a reply brief with the ALC. DSS filed its
respondent's brief to Jeter's appeal to the ALC on September 3, 2019.
Accordingly, Jeter had until September 18, 2019 to file his reply brief. See
SCALC Rule 4B ("The date of the filing is the date of delivery or the date of
mailing."); SCALC Rule 37A ("A reply brief and one copy may be filed ten (10)
days [after the respondent filed its brief]."). On September 16, 2019, Jeter filed a
return to DSS's motions to amend the record and a file brief late. The ALC issued
its final order September 20, 2019. Thus, the ALC did not abuse its discretion or
violate Jeter's due process rights by issuing its final order without permitting Jeter
to file a reply brief. See Bundy v. Shirley, 412 S.C. 292, 303, 772 S.E.2d 163, 169
(2015) ("The fundamental requirements of due process include notice, an
opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way, and judicial review." (quoting
Kurschner v. City of Camden Planning Comm'n, 376 S.C. 165, 171, 656 S.E.2d
346, 350 (2008))).
AFFIRMED.1
KONDUROS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.