Moore, Eddie 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 Eddie Moore, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. Appeal From Administrative Law Court Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-456 Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October 20, 2010 AFFIRMED Eddie Moore, pro se, for Appellant Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Eddie Moore appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) summary dismissal of his inmate grievance appeal, alleging the ALC erred in determining his allegations did not implicate a state-created liberty interest. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corrs., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) (finding summary dismissal is "appropriate where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest"). AFFIRMED. SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. Because Moore's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest, we need not reach his remaining arguments. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (finding an appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive).