ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. KER 0523-03
In the above-captioned matter, Appellant Ira Wellington appeals of the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny, in part, his grievance concerning his placement in a control cell for seventy-two hours. Based upon the record presented in this appeal, I find that the Department’s decision to partially deny Appellant’s grievance must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In Step 1 and Step 2 Inmate Grievance Forms, submitted on October 16, 2003, and March 16, 2004, respectively, and identified as grievance number KER 0523-03, Appellant complained of his placement in a control cell for seventy-two hours. In particular, he contended that his verbally aggressive conduct did not justify his placement in a control cell, and that, while in the control cell, he was denied certain basic necessities, such as a blanket, access to personal hygiene, and his prescription medications. In response to Appellant’s grievance, the Department determined that Appellant was improperly placed in the control cell, but further found that, while he was in the cell, he was treated in accordance with Department policy for such confinement. Specifically, the Department found that Appellant did receive a security blanket and was given his medications. Therefore, by a final agency decision dated June 3, 2004, the Department upheld Appellant’s grievance to the extent he argued that he was improperly placed in a control cell, but denied the grievance to the extent Appellant alleged that he received inadequate treatment while in the cell. Appellant now appeals the Department’s decision before this Court.
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 fully considered the documents filed by Appellant and the Department and having closely reviewed the record in this matter, I find that the Department’s resolution of Appellant’s grievance was the result of a routine and good-faith exercise of the Department’s administrative responsibilities that is supported by sufficient 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.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s decision to partially deny Appellant’s grievance is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731
August 23, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
