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

Supreme Outspoken 7 Allah, #219195 vs. SCDOC

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Supreme Outspoken 7 Allah, #219195

South Carolina Department of Corrections



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.


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.


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.


For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance is AFFIRMED.



Carolyn C. Matthews

Administrative Law Judge

April 21, 2006

Columbia, South Carolina

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court