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:
Debra Summerford #189099 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Debra Summerford #189099

vs.

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
05-ALJ-04-01199-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. CGGCI 0201-05

In the above-captioned matter, Appellant Debra Summerford appeals of the decision of Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny her grievance concerning her request for a new bed to address her back pain. 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 September 9, 2005, and October 28, 2005, respectively, and identified as grievance number CGGCI 0201-05, Appellant contends the medical officials at the Camille Griffin Graham Correctional Institution unreasonably delayed her receipt of a new bed—specifically, a bed with a back-board—that was ordered to address her back pain. In response to Appellant’s grievance, the Department found that Appellant had been provided with a back-board for her bed on October 20, 2005. Therefore, by a final agency decision dated November 30, 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


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court