ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This
matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court)
pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed, by Appellant (Inmate) above named, who
is incarcerated with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC).
Inmate appeals
from the decision in his Step 2 Grievance which upheld his conviction for Use
or Possession of Unauthorized Drugs (903). Inmate’s ground for appeal is,
essentially, that he was convicted upon insufficient evidence.
Questions
of Fact
An
Administrative Law Judge may not substitute his judgment for that of an agency
"as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." S.C. Code
Ann. § 1- 23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2003). Furthermore, an Administrative Law Judge may
not reverse or modify an agency's decision unless substantial rights of the
Appellant have been prejudiced because the decision is clearly erroneous in
view of the substantial evidence on the whole Record, arbitrary or affected by
an error of law. See Section 1-23-380(A)(6); See also Marietta Garage, Inc.
v. South Carolina Dep’t of Public Safety, 337 S.C. 133, 522 S.E.2d 605 (Ct.
App. 1999); South Carolina Dep’t of Labor, Licensing and Regulation v.
Girgis, 332 S.C. 162, 503 S.E.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1998). "'Substantial
evidence' is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed blindly
from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the Record as a
whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the
administrative agency reached or must have reached in order to justify its
action." Lark v. Bi-Lo, 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306
(1981). Accordingly, the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions
from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from
being supported by substantial evidence. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E.2d 388 (1995).
Additionally,
in Superintendent, Massachusetts Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S. Ct. 2768 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the relevant question is
whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion
reached by the disciplinary board."
Thus,
dismissal is proper because this Court cannot, on questions of fact, substitute
its judgment for that of the agency hearing officer.
I
conclude that the decision appealed from is not clearly erroneous in view of
the substantial evidence on the whole record, arbitrary or affected by other
error of law. There is clearly enough evidence to support Inmate’s conviction.
This appeal should be dismissed for the reason stated above.
Accordingly, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order appealed from is AFFIRMED and that
the within appeal be and hereby is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.
Columbia, S.C. ________________________________
May 29, 2007 John D. McLeod, Judge
S.C.
Administrative Law Court
|
