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

Randolph Butler, #292077 vs. SCDOC

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Randolph Butler, #292077

South Carolina Department of Corrections



Grievance No. ACI 1022-08

In the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance concerning his disciplinary conviction for Striking an Inmate with or without a Weapon, 810 under SCDC Inmate Disciplinary System Policy OP-22.14. He contends that the conviction should be overturned because he was not guilty of the offense. Based upon the record presented in this appeal, I find that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance must be affirmed.


This appeal is before this Court pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), and Slezak v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004). Appellant contends that his Striking an Inmate with or without a Weapon conviction should be overturned because his conviction was not supported by the evidence, and that he did not receive due process of law. In response to Appellant’s grievance, the Department determined that the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing sufficiently supported his conviction; that the hearing was conducted in compliance with procedural requirements; and that the punishment imposed—fifty dollars ($50.00) restitution; loss of sixty (60) days good time; loss of one hundred and eighty (180) days canteen and phone privileges; sixty (60) days disciplinary detention; and loss of contact visitation for one hundred and eighty (180) days—was appropriate for the offense.


Due Process

The Record reveals that Appellant was afforded all the required due process in prison disciplinary cases: (1) Notice of the Charges (Striking an Inmate with or without a Weapon); (2) disclosure of evidence against Defendant (Disciplinary Offense Report was read); (3) an Opportunity to be heard (Hearing on June 3, 2008); (4) a neutral and detached hearing body (Hearing Officer); (5) aid of Counsel substitute or other substitute aid; and (6) a written statement by the Fact Finder as to the Evidence relied upon (Major Disciplinary Report and Hearing Record). Therefore, by a final agency decision dated August 29, 2008, the Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that denial before this Court.

The charging officer, Officer E. Jamison, reported that on May 22, 2008, he heard loud noises coming from Cell A-51 of the Bamberg Unit in Allendale Correctional Institution. Ofc. Jamison reported that we he walked over to cell A-51, inmate Scott Stroud was standing at the cell doorway, banging on the door and asking to be let out. The report states that Stroud had blood on his face and arms and was carrying an 8-inch long piece of metal, and he told Ofc. Jamison that Appellant, his roommate, tried to stab him. Ofc. Jamison reported that both inmates had stab wounds and both were taken to a holding cell and charged with a disciplinary offense. Appellant says he should not have been charged because no one saw him stab or strike Stroud and because Stroud says appellant only “tried” to stab him. Appellant also complains that Ofc. Jamison did not record his employee identification number on the incident report.

Having fully considered the documents filed by Appellant and the Department and having closely reviewed the record in this matter, I find that Appellant’s disciplinary conviction and the sanctions imposed upon him as a consequence of that conviction were the result of a routine and good-faith exercise of the Department’s administrative responsibilities that is sufficiently supported by the evidence in the record. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Department’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or the result of personal bias or prejudice. Accordingly, the Department’s decision in this matter should be affirmed.


For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance is AFFIRMED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________

Carolyn C. Matthews

Administrative Law Judge

February 4, 2009

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court