ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO.: ECI 619-03
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South
Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance
concerning his November 7, 2003 disciplinary conviction for Use or Possession
of Narcotics, Marijuana, or Unauthorized Drugs, Including Prescription Drugs,
thereby violating Section 1.10 of 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 90 days Good Time Credits; Loss of Canteen and
Telephone privileges for 30 days; loss of 120 days of Visitation Privileges;
and 5 hours extra duty—was appropriate for the offense. Therefore, by a final
agency decision dated November 19, 2003, 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 1, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |