Ceo v. SCDOC

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 Supreme Court

Ronald Ceo, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000188

Appeal From Administrative Law Court The Honorable Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2016-MO-020 Submitted May 18, 2016 – Filed June 22, 2016

AFFIRMED

Ronald Ceo, of Turbeville, Pro Se, Appellant.

Christina Catoe Bigelow, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 743 S.E.2d 778 (2013)(an unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance); Great Games, Inc. v. S.C. Dept. of Revenue, 339 S.C. 79, 529 S.E.2d 6 (2000)(The Administrative Law Court has no authority to pass on the constitutionality of a statute.); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000)(When an

inmate challenges the constitutionality of a statute, the Department of Corrections and the Administrative Law Court must follow the statute and leave the question of whether it is constitutional to the courts.).

AFFIRMED.

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur.