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

James E. McNeil #147700 vs. SCDOC

South Carolina Department of Corrections

James E. McNeil #147700

South Carolina Department of Corrections




On September 27, 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).

The Administrative Law Judge Division's (Division) jurisdiction to hear this matter is derived entirely from the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, Op. No. 24995 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed February 14, 2000) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 6 at 21), 2000 WL 156547. In Al-Shabazz, the Supreme Court created a new avenue by which inmates could seek review of final decisions of the Department in "non-collateral" matters, i.e., matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence, by appealing those decisions to the Division and ultimately to circuit court pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act.

However, 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). A party who is aggrieved is one who "is injured in a legal sense; one who has suffered an injury to person or property." Bivens, 173 S.E.2d at 152, citing Parker v. Brown, 195 S.C. 35, 10 S.E.2d 625. The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial grievance, "a denial of some personal or property right or the imposition on a party of a burden or obligation." Id.

There is no evidence that the Appellant was substantially aggrieved by the actions of the Department in this grievance. The Appellant filed this grievance on or about February 28, 2000, in which he complained about not receiving adequate medical care at Lieber Correctional Institute on February 23, 2000. In that examination regarding problems with his left eye, the Appellant's medical record reflected that the examining physician found the Appellant to have a "[r]eal poor attitude. When asked him about his eye, he raised his voice and said check my record." (See Attached Exhibit 1.) At that point, it appears his treatment was terminated. The Appellant was then seen by medical staff on February 29, 2000, where his complaints were treated and an appointment was made for him on March 1, 2000 to see an ophthalmologist on April 26, 2000. (1) In effect, the Appellant was given the relief the sought.

Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the Appellant was not substantially aggrieved by the final decision of the Department.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted and that this appeal of James E. McNeil is hereby dismissed.



Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

November 20, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina


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.

1. On page 3 of his Brief, the Appellant set forth: "Based on Dr. Brinor[sic] unethical medical practice [sic] I had to suffer until I was properly examine[sic] by another who diagnosed my medical problems and treated me with the proper medication and made me a[sic] eye appointment."

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court