McKinnedy 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 C. McKinnedy, III, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. Appeal From the Administrative Law Court Ralph K. Anderson, III, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-209 Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 4, 2011 AFFIRMED William C. McKinnedy, pro se, for Appellant. Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: William C. McKinnedy appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order summarily dismissing his inmate grievance appeal. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the ALC erred in summarily dismissing McKinnedy's inmate grievance appeal: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (limiting reversal of an ALC decision unless "in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . affected by other error of law; . . . [or] arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion"); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) (holding the ALC has the discretion to summarily dismiss inmate grievance appeals that do "not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest"); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) ("[State-created liberty] interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life."). 2. As to all other issues: State v. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. 354, 379, 527 S.E.2d 742, 755 (2000) ("Consequently, issues or arguments that were not raised to and ruled on by the [ALC] ordinarily are not preserved for review."); Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248, 349 S.E.2d 92, 94 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding that appellant has the burden of showing that an error was prejudicial). AFFIRMED. HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.