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:
Osmond Rosemond vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Osmond Rosemond

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-04-00803-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Grievance No. TRCI-490-00-LY

I. Introduction



Osmond Rosemond (Rosemond) brings this appeal challenging a decision by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC) which convicted Rosemond of refusing to obey an order and of disrespect for which he lost 40 days good time credit. Jurisdiction is invoked in the instant case since this matter is a disciplinary hearing in which Rosemond 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. 2000). See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(B) (Supp. 2000) (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, Rosemond argues that the DOC decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.



III. Analysis

Substantial Evidence



Rosemond argues the DOC decision must be reversed since the decision is not supported by the evidence. I cannot agree.



In examining a DOC determination for the presence of evidentiary support, an ALJ must review the matter in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742. In that capacity, an ALJ reviewing factual disputes between DOC and the inmate "will not substitute [the ALJ's] judgment for that of the [DOC Hearing Officer] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2000).



Thus, once the facts are established by the Hearing Officer, the ALJ will not re-weigh the evidence in an attempt to come to an independent conclusion on the factual dispute. Rather, the ALJ will rely upon the Hearing Officers factual determinations unless such those determinations are "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23- 380(A)(6)(e) (Supp. 2000). In determining if substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer's factual determinations, the ALJ does not look for "a mere scintilla of evidence nor evidence viewed blindly from one side, but [rather looks for ] evidence which, when considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the agency reached." Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984). Accordingly, if such evidence is present, substantial evidence is present and the factual determinations will not be overturned.



Here, substantial evidence supports the factual determinations made below. The testimony shows that a DOC officer directed Rosemond to leave the cafeteria since he had finished eating. The testimony explained that Rosemond heard the directive but refused to move. Further, the testimony is that Rosemond cursed the officer and explained that he would leave only when he had finished talking to another inmate. These determinations would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that Rosemond committed the act here in dispute. Thus, substantial evidence supports the DOC decision.





IV. Conclusion



The guilty verdict entered by DOC against Osmond Rosemond is AFFIRMED.



AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



____________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge



Dated: April 18, 2002

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court