Cleveland v. SCDC ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • 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
    George Cleveland, III, #35770,
    v.
    South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2015-000183
    Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
    Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-506
    Submitted November 1, 2016 – Filed December 7, 2016
    AFFIRMED
    George Cleveland, III, pro se.
    Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
    Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 
    355 S.C. 437
    , 443, 
    586 S.E.2d 124
    , 127
    (2003) (finding the only way the ALC can obtain subject matter jurisdiction over
    an inmate's grievance is when it "implicates a [state-created] liberty interest
    sufficient to trigger procedural due process guarantees"); Howard v. S.C. Dep't of
    Corr., 
    399 S.C. 618
    , 629, 
    733 S.E.2d 211
    , 217 (2012) ("[A]n inmate's loss of the
    opportunity to earn sentence-related credits does not implicate a state-created
    liberty interest."); 
    id.
     ("[T]here is a difference between an inmate's forfeiture of
    accrued sentence-related credits versus the withholding of unearned, potentially
    available sentence-related credits. Clearly, an inmate does not acquire an interest
    in sentence-related credits until he or she earns them."); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of
    Corr., 
    361 S.C. 327
    , 331, 
    605 S.E.2d 506
    , 508 (2004) ("[T]he [ALC] is not
    required to hold a hearing in every matter. Summary dismissal may be appropriate
    where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property
    interest.").
    AFFIRMED.1
    WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2016-UP-506

Filed Date: 12/7/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024