I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Wayne Stephens, #273128 (Stephens) of a final decision in a non-collateral or administrative matter issued by the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(DOC). Thus, appellate review jurisdiction vests in the Administrative Law Court (ALC).
Slezak v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004).
However, for inmate appeals, the nature of the appellate review depends upon the nature of the
claim presented. Appeals that do not implicate an inmate's state-created liberty or property
interest may be summarily decided. Id.("We hold that the [ALC] has jurisdiction over all
properly perfected inmate appeals, but clarify that it may summarily decide those appeals that do
not implicate an inmate's state-created liberty or property interest."). On the other hand, appeals
that implicate a protected interest are reviewed under the appellate review standards of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 754
(2000) (The ALC conducts an APA review "in an appellate capacity" and is "restricted to
reviewing the decision below.").
II. Analysis
Here, Stephens presents a claim that challenges a DOC decision that resulted in a guilty verdict
to the charge of violation of a written rule. As a consequence, DOC imposed a sanction of a
verbal reprimand.
Such a challenge implicates a liberty interest only if "the State's action will inevitably affect the
duration of [the inmate's] sentence" (Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995)) or if the state
has granted some benefit of which the inmate has been deprived and the deprivation "imposes
atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Here, DOC imposed a verbal reprimand. Such actions do not inevitably affect the duration of
the sentence imposed on Stephens. Further, the claim does not implicate a state-created liberty
interest since DOC's action is not atypical and is not an action that is a significant hardship in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Thus, the claim here fails to implicate a
protected liberty or property interest and warrants a summary dismissal.
III. Conclusion
The decision entered below by DOC against Wayne Stephens, #273128 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
