ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO.: ECI 673-05
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South
Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance
concerning his August 8, 2005 disciplinary conviction for Sexual Misconduct, thereby
violating Section 2.09 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, 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 60 days Good Time Credits;
90 days Disciplinary Detention; Suspension of Telephone and Canteen Privileges
for 90 days; and suspension of Visitation Privileges for one year—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 August
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 3, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
