ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO.: PCI 472-05
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South
Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance
concerning his June 28, 2005 disciplinary conviction for Sexual Misconduct, thereby
violating Section 822 of SCDC Inmate Disciplinary System Policy OP-22.14. This
case was assigned to Judge Stevens on August 24, 2005; it was reassigned to
Judge Matthews on January 13, 2006. Based upon the record presented in this
appeal, I find that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance
must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Appellant
contends that his disciplinary 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 convictions; that the hearing was conducted in compliance with procedural
requirements; and that the punishment imposed—loss of 6 days Good Time Credits;
360 days Disciplinary Suspension; and Suspension of Privileges for 540 days—was
appropriate for the offense. The Record reveals that Appellant was afforded
all the required due process in prison disciplinary cases: (1) Notice of the
Charges; (2) disclosure of evidence against him; (3) an Opportunity to be
heard; (4) a neutral and detached hearing body; (5) aid of Counsel substitute
or other substitute aid; and (6) a written statement by the Fact Finder as
to the Evidence relied upon. Therefore, by a final agency decision dated July 12,
2005, the Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that
denial 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 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.
ORDER
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 6, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
