Watford v. SCDC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Perry Watford, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000768

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-241
Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015

AFFIRMED

Perry Watford, pro se.

Daniel John Crooks, III, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234
(Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal of the final decision of an administrative agency,
the standard of appellate review is whether the [Administrative Law Court's]
findings are supported by substantial evidence."); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361
S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) ("Summary dismissal may be
appropriate where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty
or property interest."); Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 195, 470 S.E.2d 848, 851
(1996) ("[An inmate] has no liberty interest in his security and custody
classification."); Skipper v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 370 S.C. 267, 275, 633 S.E.2d 910,
914 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[T]he classifications . . . of prisoners in such institutions are
matters of prison administration, within the discretion of the prison administrators,
and do not require fact-finding hearings as a prerequisite for the exercise of such
discretion." (quoting Altizer v. Paderick, 569 F.2d 812, 812-13 (4th Cir. 1978))).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.