ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. PCI 0412-05
The
above-captioned case was originally assigned to another administrative law
judge on July 7, 2005, and was reassigned to the undersigned on January 13,
2006, for adjudication. In this matter, Appellant Shango Damballah appeals of
the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections
(Department) to deny his grievance concerning his classification as a “violent”
offender. Based upon the record presented in this appeal, I find that the
Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In
Step 1 and Step 2 Inmate Grievance Forms, submitted on March 25, 2005, and May
18, 2005, respectively, and identified as grievance number PCI 0412-05,
Appellant contends that, because he has satisfied his sentence for armed
robbery, he should no longer be classified with the Department as a violent
offender as he serves his remaining sentences for assault and battery. In
response to Appellant’s grievance, the Department found that, while Appellant
has served his sentence for armed robbery, it was still appropriate to classify
Appellant as a violent offender for internal Departmental security and housing
purposes given his continued custody with the Department. Therefore, by a
final agency decision dated June 23, 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 the Department’s
decision to deny Appellant’s grievance was the result of a routine and
good-faith exercise of the Department’s administrative responsibilities that is
supported by sufficient 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.
______________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
1205 Pendleton
Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South
Carolina 29201-3731
June 20, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
