Fred Freedman v. SC Department of Corrections

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 Fred Freeman, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. Appeal From Richland County Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-090 Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 3, 2010 AFFIRMED Fred Freeman, pro se, for Appellant. Robert W. Jacobs, of Lexington, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Fred Freeman appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) dismissal of his grievance concerning the deprivation of a hygiene kit and legal materials and its affirmance of the Department of Corrections' denial of his grievance concerning misappropriation of funds from his inmate trust account. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) (holding while the ALC has jurisdiction over all properly filed inmate grievance appeals, the ALC is not required to hold a hearing in every matter); Id. ("Summary dismissal may be appropriate where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest."); S.C. Dep't of Corrections v. Mitchell, 377 S.C. 256, 260, 659 S.E.2d 233, 235 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The burden is on [the] appellants to prove convincingly that the agency's decision is unsupported by the evidence."). AFFIRMED. HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.