ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On August 17, 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).
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. In this
grievance, the Appellant has made allegations regarding a "tracer" being placed by the U.S. Postal Service on some legal mail that
never reached its destination. The U.S. Postal Service has not contacted the Appellant as to the location of his missing mail.
However, the Appellant does not have a claim with the Department because the Department does not control the U.S. Postal Service.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted and that this appeal of Billy Pendergrass is hereby
dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
September 28, 2000
Columbia, SC |
