Full text
Ford 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
William Ford, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-002114
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-007 Submitted October 1, 2016 – Filed January 11, 2017
AFFIRMED
William Ford, 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: Howard v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 399 S.C. 618, 625, 733 S.E.2d 211, 215 (2012) ("[The] standard of review derives from the APA. We may affirm, remand, reverse, or modify the appealed decision if the appellant's substantive rights have suffered prejudice because the 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." (citation omitted) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 1- 23-610(B) (Supp. 2011))); 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
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.
1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.