South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Sam Donnan, #277658 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Sam Donnan, #277658

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
03-ALJ-04-00997-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

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


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court