ORDERS:
ORDER
Grievance No. KCI 0298-03
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant Demetrick Doctor appeals the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his
grievance in which he contends that the Department violated Policy/Procedure
OP-22.04, Use of Force. Based upon the record on appeal, the parties’ briefs,
and the applicable law, the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance
must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Appellant
submitted his Step One Inmate Grievance Form to the Department on August 18, 2003
and alleged that the Department violated its policy regarding the use of force
against inmates. In response, the Department determined that it complied with
the policy in question regarding Appellant’s allegations. Appellant filed his
Step Two form with the Department on October 2, 2003 and again challenged the
Department’s compliance with its policy regarding the use of force against
inmates. In response, the Department issued its final decision on January 20,
2004 by informing Appellant that the Department complied with this policy.
Based upon the final decision of the Department, Appellant filed a notice of appeal
with the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) on March 2, 2004 to challenge
the Department’s determination. In his notice of appeal, Appellant requests
that any disciplinary sanctions against him as a result of the incident on
August 12, 2003 be overturned by the Department because the Department failed
to comply with its policy regarding the use of force against inmates.
DISCUSSION
This
appeal is before this Court pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C.
354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), Sullivan v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 355
S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), Slezak v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrections,
361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004), and Furtick v. S.C. Dep’t of
Corrections, 649 S.E.2d 35 (S.C. 2007).
Based upon an incident on August 12, 2003 involving Appellant, Department
officers used chemical munitions on Appellant after he disobeyed several orders
by the officers. In this type of situation, if Department officers use
chemical munitions on an inmate, Department Policy/Procedure Op-22.14 requires
that an inmate receive medical attention by a qualified medical staff member
the next day if the situation is not an emergency. Appellant does not contend
that this situation was an emergency but contends that because the incident in
question occurred at approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 12, 2003, the “next day”
under Department policy would be August 12, 2003; because he was not seen by
the Department’s medical staff until August 13, 2003, the Department violated
its own policy. Therefore Appellant argues that his disciplinary conviction
regarding the incident that led to the Department’s use of chemical munitions
on him should be overturned.
Here,
it is readily apparent that the Department fully complied with its policy
regarding the incident on August 12, 2003: chemical munitions were used on
Appellant on August 12, 2003, and he was seen by the Department’s medical staff
at Kershaw Correctional Institution, the correctional facility where he was
housed, on August 13, 2003. Accordingly, the record neither mandates nor does
Appellant articulate or cite support for any grounds of appeal that would
require this Court to reverse the Department’s decision in this matter.
ORDER
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s disciplinary conviction in this matter
is AFFIRMED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
October 22, 2007 Chief
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
|
