South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Travis Smith #286128 vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Travis Smith #286128

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
07-ALJ-04-01210-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. PCI 1377-07

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, 374 S.C. 334, 649 S.E.2d 35 (2007). Appellant seeks review of a decision of the S.C. Department of Corrections dated November 29, 2007.

In his Notice of Appeal and Step Two grievance form, Appellant argues that that the hearing officer (DHO) erred in not providing counsel substitute and not requiring his accuser to be present though he had requested both. The DHO held that Appellant had refused to sign the form, effectively waiving those rights. On the form, Appellant did check that he wanted counsel substitute and his accuser to be present. Moreover, Department policy requires that an inmate be assigned counsel substitute when he is segregated from the general population pending the hearing. See SCDC Policy/Procedure OP-22.14 § 8.1.4. However, instead of signing the form, Appellant wrote “*F__k the law*”. In light of Appellant’s blatant disrespect for the grievance system, this court in its appellate capacity cannot find that the DHO erred in finding that Appellant refused to sign the form and thereby waived his rights.

Having reviewed the record, applicable law, and the briefs filed by the parties in this matter, I find no indication of arbitrariness or capriciousness in the Department’s decision. Further, I conclude that there are no other issues of colorable merit that warrant discussion. The Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance was the result of a routine exercise of the Department’s administrative responsibilities that is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Department’s decision in this matter should be affirmed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department’s decision in the above-captioned appeal is AFFIRMED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

June 4, 2008 JOHN D. GEATHERS

Columbia, South Carolina Administrative Law Judge

1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224

Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731


~/pdf/0701210.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court