ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On July 7, 2000, the South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) filed a motion to dismiss this matter. The Department
moved to dismiss the Appellant's claim under SCRCP 12(b)(1), lack of jurisdiction over the claim; SCRCP 12(b)(6), failure of
Appellant to allege facts sufficient to state a claim; and Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (S.C. 2000). Based on the
unique set of facts surrounding this grievance, the Department agrees to give the Appellant the lost pay he is requesting. More
specifically, the Department will compensate the Appellant Five and sixty-nine/hundredths ($5.69) Dollars within thirty (30) days of
the date of this Order of Dismissal. Furthermore, the Appellant's remaining allegations do not rise to the level of a "substantial
grievance," and are therefore dismissed.
The right of appeal is accorded only to a "party aggrieved." Also, a party cannot appeal a ruling unless he has been "substantially"
aggrieved by that ruling. Bivens v. Knight, 254 S.C. 10, 173 S.E.2d 150 (1970); See also S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A) (judicial
review available to parties who are aggrieved by a final decision of an agency). Although there are exceptional cases, the general rule is
that a plaintiff or defendant cannot appeal or prosecute a writ of error from or to a judgment, order, or decree in his own favor, since
he is not aggrieved thereby. See Wilson v. Southern Ry., Carolina Division, et al., 123 S.C. 399, 115 S.E. 764 (1923). A [p]erson is
"aggrieved" by judgment or decree, as requirement for right to appeal, when judgment or decree operates on his rights of property or
bears directly upon his interest and constitutes substantial grievance, denial of some personal or property right, or imposition on a
party of some burden or obligation. Burns v. Gardner, 328 S.C. 608, 493 S.E.2d 356 (S.C. App. 1997).
The Department has agreed to pay the Appellant the pay he lost while he was locked up and could not work. Furthermore, there is no
additional evidence that the Appellant was substantially aggrieved. While the Appellant is requesting that an officer of the Department
be reprimanded, this does not rise to the level of a substantial grievance.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted and that this appeal of Stephen Stanko is hereby
dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department will compensate the Appellant Five and sixty-nine/hundredths ($5.69) Dollars
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order of Dismissal.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
August 9, 2000s
Columbia, SC
APPEAL RIGHTS
You are entitled to appeal this final order of the Administrative Law Judge Division by filing a petition for judicial review in circuit
court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this order. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610 (Supp. 1999). The petition may be filed in any
circuit court as long as the chosen forum is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and provided that no statute controls venue in a
particular type of case. The review of the administrative law judge's order must be confined to the record. The reviewing tribunal
may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantive rights of
the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is: (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. |
