ORDERS:
Order
Grievance No. TyRCI 706-05UY
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South
Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance
concerning his May 21, 2005 disciplinary conviction for Threatening to Inflict
Harm on an Employee, thereby violating Section 809 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 20 days Good Time Credits;
360 Days Disciplinary Detention; Loss of 540 Days Phone, Canteen, and Visitation
Privileges, and a verbal reprimand—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. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 437, 527 S.E.2d 742, 751 (S.C.
2000).
Therefore,
by a final agency decision dated October 27, 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
April 21, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
