Anthony Williams, Jr. v. SCDC (1)

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

Anthony Williams, Jr., Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001290

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-396
Submitted September 1, 2017 – Filed October 18, 2017

AFFIRMED

Tommy Arthur Thomas, of Irmo, for Appellant.

Kensey Collins, of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(c), (e) (Supp. 2016) (providing the
court of appeals may reverse or modify the decision of the Administrative Law
Court (the ALC) if the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced
because the finding, conclusion, or decision is "made upon unlawful procedure" or
"clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on
the whole record"); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2016) (explaining an
appellate court "may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as
to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact"); Friends of Earth v. Pub. Serv.
Comm'n of S.C., 387 S.C. 360, 366, 692 S.E.2d 910, 913 (2010) ("Substantial
evidence is not a mere scintilla; rather, it is evidence which, considering the record
as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion as the
[ALC]."); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 382, 527 S.E.2d 742, 757 (2000)
("Courts traditionally have adopted a 'hands off' doctrine regarding judicial
involvement in prison disciplinary procedures and other internal prison matters,
although they must intercede when infringements complained of by an inmate
reach constitutional dimensions."); id. at 371, 527 S.E.2d at 751 ("[D]ue process in
a prison disciplinary proceeding involving serious misconduct requires: (1) that
advance written notice of the charge be given to the inmate at least twenty-four
hours before the hearing; (2) that factfinders must prepare a written statement of
the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action; (3) that the inmate
should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, provided
there is no undue hazard to institutional safety or correctional goals; (4) that
counsel substitute (a fellow inmate or a prison employee) should be allowed to
help illiterate inmates or in complex cases an inmate cannot handle alone; and (5)
that the persons hearing the matter, who may be prison officials or employees,
must be impartial."); id. at 370, 527 S.E.2d at 750 ("[C]ourts must balance the
demands of the Due Process Clause against the need to maintain an orderly and
safe prison environment."); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 567 (1974) ("Rules
of procedure may be shaped by consideration of the risks of error, and should also
be shaped by the consequences which will follow their adoption." (citations
omitted)); id. at 568 ("[A]dequate bases for decision in prison disciplinary cases
can be arrived at without cross-examination.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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