Peterson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections ( 2011 )

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

Howard T. Peterson, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

---

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

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-582
Submitted December 1, 2011 – Filed December 21, 2011   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Howard T. Peterson, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Howard Peterson appeals the dismissal of his appeal from the Administrative Law Court (ALC).  Peterson argues the ALC erred in dismissing his appeal based on his failure to raise any sufficient grounds for appeal.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: ALC Rule 59(B) (requiring notice of appeal to contain "a brief factual basis for each expressly and specifically asserted constitutional violation"); ALC Rule 62 ("[The ALC] may dismiss an appeal . . . for the failure to provide a factual basis for each expressly and specifically asserted constitutional violation as prescribed by Rule 59(B).").   

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

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