Glenn 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 John Glenn, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. Appeal from the Administrative Law Court John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-182 Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 19, 2011 AFFIRMED Jason Paul Peavy, of Columbia, for Appellant. Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: John Glenn appeals a dismissal of his grievance appeal by the Administrative Law Court (the ALC) for failure to assert a state-created liberty or property interest. Glenn argues he asserted a state-created liberty interest because his conviction of possession of marijuana while incarcerated resulted in the loss of privileges, reclassification to a more secure status, and transfer to a more secure facility. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (providing that a review of the ALC's decision is "confined to the record" and this court may reverse the decision if substantial evidence does not support the ALC's findings are not supported by substantial evidence or the ALC's decision is affected by an error of law); Furtick v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 374 S.C. 334, 340, 649 S.E.2d 35, 38 (2007) (holding the ALC may summarily dismiss a grievance appeal "where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437, 445 n.5, 586 S.E.2d 124, 128 n.5 (2003) ("[S]tate-created liberty interests . . . are not necessarily limited to sentence credit issues and major disciplinary decisions. . . . However, . . . these interests will generally be limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical or significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 381-82, 52 S.E.2d 742, 756-57 (1999) (providing that an inmate does not have a state-created liberty interest in a particular custody status or location of incarceration (citing Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 194-95, 470 S.E.2d 848, 851 (1996); Crowe v. Leeke, 273 S.C. 763, 763-64, 259 S.E.2d 614, 614-15 (1979)); Brown, 322 S.C. at 194-95, 470 S.E.2d at 851 (holding that an inmate has no state-created liberty interest in a particular security status). AFFIRMED. FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.