Ford 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

William Ford, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002114

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-007
Submitted October 1, 2016 – Filed January 11, 2017

AFFIRMED

William Ford, pro se.

Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Howard v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 399 S.C. 618, 625, 733 S.E.2d 211, 215
(2012) ("[The] standard of review derives from the APA. We may affirm, remand,
reverse, or modify the appealed decision if the appellant's substantive rights have
suffered prejudice because the 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." (citation omitted) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 1-
23-610(B) (Supp. 2011))); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605
S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) ("[T]he [ALC] is not required to hold a hearing in every
matter. Summary dismissal may be appropriate where the inmate's grievance does
not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.

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