ORDERS:
Grievance No. PCI-1106-00
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
I. Introduction
Ernest James Lawton (Lawton) brings this appeal challenging a decision by the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(DOC) which convicted Lawton of sexual assault and striking an employee. Jurisdiction is invoked in the instant case
since this matter is a disciplinary hearing in which Lawton was punished by the loss of good time credits, a loss which
impacts a created liberty interest. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000); McNeil v. South
Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001). After a review of the record and the
arguments, the DOC decision is AFFIRMED.
II. Scope of Review
In this review, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) acts "in an appellate capacity" and is "restricted to reviewing the
decision below." Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 754 (2000). The review must apply the criteria of
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2001). See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(B) (Supp. 2001) (where an ALJ is
directed to conduct a review "in the same manner prescribed in [§ 1-23-380](A)."). Section 1-23-380(A)(6) establishes the
following:
The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(c) made upon unlawful procedure;
(d) affected by other error of law;
(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
In this case, Lawton argues that the DOC decision is made upon unlawful procedure in that DOC failed to provide a
"signed copy of an order from commissioner saying good time has been taken."
III. Analysis
Unlawful Procedure
Lawton asserts that DOC failed to follow its own rules governing the grievance process. Here, the specific allegation is
that DOC failed to provide the inmate with a signed copy of an order from the commissioner removing good time credit
from Lawton. I conclude that no signed order is required.
The Director is authorized to promulgate policy directing the manner and means by which good time credit may be lost.
S.C. Code § 24-13-210. The Director has promulgated such a policy via OP 21.11. The Director's signature to that policy is
all that is required and no duty exist to issue an individual order to an inmate removing good time credit. Thus, I find that
the policy was complied with and no violation of procedural rules occurred.
IV. Conclusion
The guilty verdict entered by DOC against Ernest James Lawton is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 9, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
