ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is currently pending before the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to Al Shabazz v. State, 338
S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (S.C. 2000) and the Appellant's Notice of Appeal filed November 14, 2000. The Respondent filed a
Motion to Dismiss on December 7, 2000, alleging that the Appellant failed to timely serve the Notice of Appeal on the Respondent.
The Notice of Appeal, however, contains a Certificate of Service stating that the Appellant served the Respondent on October 24,
2000. Since the Appellant received the Final Agency Determination on October 17, 2000, the service was within the thirty (30) day
time period.
In his Notice of Appeal, however, the Appellant seeks the firing of an officer, transfer of this case to the common pleas docket, and
monetary damages in the amount of $75,000.00. The Appellant's relief requested falls under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, and
not the jurisdiction of the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to Al Shabazz. This Division will not intercede in internal
prison matters absent an inmate complaint of an infringement reaching "constitutional dimensions," see Al Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 382,
527 S.E.2d at 757. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
December 6, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina
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 of the finding, conclusion, or decision is: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; () made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other error of law;
(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious or
characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. |
