Sturkey 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

Darrell Sturkey, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000722

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-077
Submitted February 1, 2021 – Filed March 10, 2021

AFFIRMED

Darrell Sturkey, pro se.

Imani Diane Byas and Christina Catoe Bigelow, both of
South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Darrell Sturkey appeals an order of the Administrative Law
Court (ALC) dismissing his appeal of a decision by the South Carolina Department
of Corrections (SCDC) denying his inmate grievance. Sturkey challenges the
ALC's decision to dismiss his appeal on the ground that his grievance did not
implicate a state-created liberty or property interest. We affirm.
Initially, we note the record supports SCDC's argument that Sturkey did not serve
it with a copy of the notice of his appeal to the ALC as he was required to do under
the South Carolina Administrative Law Court Rules. See SCALC Rule 59
(requiring a notice of appeal from a final agency decision to be filed with the ALC
and service of the notice "on each party, including the agency, within thirty . . .
days of receipt of the decision from which the appeal is taken"). Because of this
omission, the ALC could have dismissed Sturkey's appeal on jurisdictional
grounds. See id. ("Any notice of appeal which is incomplete or not in compliance
with this rule . . . will not be assigned to an administrative law judge until all
required information is received . . . ."); SCALC Rule 62 (authorizing the ALC to
"dismiss an appeal . . . for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for
appeals"); Hill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 389 S.C. 1, 21, 698 S.E.2d
612, 623 (2010) ("The service of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement .
. . .").

In any event, we hold the record also supports the ALC's dismissal of Sturkey's
appeal on the ground that it did not involve the deprivation of a state-created
liberty or property interest. According to the brief Sturkey filed in his appeal to
this court, the only interests that were implicated in his inmate grievance were a
denial of the opportunity to earn good time credits, placement in an allegedly
unsatisfactory facility, and losses of a job assignment, personal property, and
certain inmate privileges. None of these are state-created liberty or property
interests; therefore, the ALC properly dismissed Sturkey's appeal. See S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2020) ("[The ALC] shall not hear an appeal from an
inmate in the custody of [SCDC] involving the loss of the opportunity to earn
sentence-related credits . . . ."); Howard v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 399 S.C. 618, 629,
733 S.E.2d 211, 217 (2012) (acknowledging the authority of the South Carolina
legislature to "limit the jurisdiction of the ALC" and further recognizing "an
inmate's loss of the opportunity to earn sentence-related credits does not implicate
a state-created liberty interest"); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 333,
605 S.E.2d 506, 509 (2004) (allowing the ALC to "summarily decide those appeals
that do not implicate an inmate's state-created liberty or property interest").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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