Jamison v. SCDC

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
Andra Jamison, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2017-000686
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-378
Submitted September 1, 2018 – Filed October 10, 2018
AFFIRMED
Andra Jamison, 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: S.C. Dep't of Corr. v. Mitchell, 377 S.C. 256, 258, 659 S.E.2d 233, 234
(Ct. App. 2008) ("Section 1-23-610 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. [2017]) sets
forth the standard of review when the court of appeals is sitting in review of a
decision by the [administrative law court (ALC)] on an appeal from an
administrative agency."); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2017) ("[This]
court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the
weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); id. (providing when reviewing an
ALC decision, "[t]he court of appeals may . . . reverse or modify the decision if the
substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding,
conclusion, or decision is: (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"); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506,
508 (2004) ("While the AL[C] has jurisdiction over all inmate grievance appeals
that have been properly filed, we emphasize that the [ALC] is not required to hold
a hearing in every matter."); Skipper v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 370 S.C. 267, 274, 633
S.E.2d 910, 914 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Courts traditionally have adopted a 'hands off'
doctrine regarding judicial involvement in prison disciplinary procedures and other
internal prison matters, although they must intercede when infringements
complained of by an inmate reach constitutional dimensions." (quoting Al-Shabazz
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 382, 527 S.E.2d 742, 757 (2000))); Howard v. S.C. Dep't of
Corr., 399 S.C. 618, 635, 733 S.E.2d 211, 220 (2012) ("The requirements of
procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by
the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property." (quoting Al-
Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at 750)); Slezak, 361 S.C. at 331, 605 S.E.2d
at 508 ("Summary dismissal may be appropriate where the inmate's grievance does
not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest."); Howard, 399 S.C. at
629, 733 S.E.2d at 217 ("[A]n inmate's loss of the opportunity to earn sentence-
related credits does not implicate a state-created liberty interest."); id. at 630, 733
S.E.2d at 218 ("[T]he ALC may summarily dismiss an inmate appeal that
involves only the loss of the opportunity to earn sentence-related credits.").
AFFIRMED.1
KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.