ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO.: ACI 234-01
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South
Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance
concerning his February 26, 2001 disciplinary conviction for Refusing or
Failing to Obey an Order [Section 2.17], thereby violating SCDC Inmate
Disciplinary System Policy OP-22.14. 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. 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 Phone Privileges for 20 days and failed to earn 20
days of Good Time Credits for the month of August—was appropriate for the
offense. Therefore, by a final agency decision dated April 12, 2001, 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
January 31, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |