ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. PCI 0230-04
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In the above-captioned matter, Appellant James McNeil appeals the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) to revoke sixty days of his “good-time” credit and to place him in disciplinary detention for ninety days as punishment for refusing to follow orders in violation of DOC Disciplinary Code § 825. Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the briefs filed by the parties in this matter, I conclude that the decision of the Department must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2004, Marsha Shoven, a DOC nurse, saw Appellant “palm” the medication given to him by another DOC nurse, Lee Mullinax. When Ms. Shoven asked Appellant to open the hand in which he had the medication, he refused to do so. Despite several further directives from Ms. Shoven to open his hand, Appellant continued to refuse to reveal what he had in the palm of his hand. As a result of this incident, Appellant was charged with violating DOC Disciplinary Code § 825, Refusing or Failing to Obey Orders.
Appellant was notified of the charge against him on May 24, 2004, and a hearing on the charge was held before a DOC Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) on June 2, 2004. At the hearing, Ms. Shoven testified regarding the details of the incident and her incident report was read into the record. Appellant, who was represented by counsel substitute, did not offer any significant testimony regarding the incident at the hearing, but instead challenged several procedural aspects of the disciplinary proceeding. At the close of the hearing, the DHO found Appellant guilty of the charge against him and prepared a written report containing his findings. As punishment for the offense, the DHO revoked sixty days of Appellant’s good-time credit and placed him in disciplinary detention for ninety days. Appellant appealed his disciplinary conviction to the Department and then to this Court. On appeal, Appellant contends that his disciplinary proceeding, and, in particular, the incident report triggering the proceeding, violated Department policies in certain respects.
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. 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). Having carefully reviewed the record in this matter under the due process standards set out in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), and their progeny, I find that Appellant’s disciplinary conviction must be affirmed. The disciplinary hearing conducted by the DHO was procedurally sound and the DHO’s conclusions are fully supported by the evidence in the record. Specifically, it does not appear that Appellant’s contentions regarding procedural irregularities in his disciplinary proceedings have any merit; and, even if Appellant’s allegations had merit, the irregularities he complains of would constitute harmless error.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s June 2, 2004 disciplinary conviction for refusing to follow orders is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731
August 11, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
