Patterson 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

Tony L.
Patterson, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From the Administrative Law Court

John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-292

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 27, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Tony L. Patterson, pro se, for Appellant.

Robert Wesley Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Tony
L. Patterson appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) affirmance of the
Department of Correction's (the Department) denial of Patterson's grievance.  We affirm.[1]          

Patterson argues the ALC
erred in finding his grievance was not timely filed.  We disagree.  The
Department denied Patterson's grievance based on SCDC Policy Number GA-01.12 ¶
13.1, which states an inmate must file a grievance within fifteen days of the
alleged incident.  Here, Patterson filed his grievance complaining of loss of his
inmate property on December 4, 2006.  Even if we construed the requirements for
filing liberally in Patterson's favor, Patterson should have filed his
grievance within fifteen days of December 6, 2004, when he originally
discovered that the Department lost his inmate property.  However, he did not
file his grievance until almost two years later.  The ALC did not err in
relying on the Department's internal policy in finding Patterson failed to
timely file his grievance because "[t]he adoption and execution of
policies and practices necessary to preserve internal order and discipline, and
to maintain institutional security in the prison are within the province and
expertise of correctional officials."  State v. Blick, 325 S.C.
636, 642, 481 S.E.2d 452, 455 (Ct. App. 1997).  Accordingly, the ALC did not
err in affirming the denial of Patterson's grievance.  See S.C. Dep't
of Corr. v. Mitchell, 377 S.C. 256, 258, 659 S.E.2d 233, 234 (Ct. App. 2008)
("The court of appeals may reverse or modify the decision only if
substantive rights of the appellant [have] been prejudiced because the decision
is clearly erroneous in light of the reliable and substantial evidence on the
whole record, arbitrary or otherwise characterized by an abuse of discretion,
or affected by other error of law.") (alteration in original).[2]            

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and
PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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

[2]  Additionally, Patterson argues the ALC erred in: (1) dismissing his case due to lack of
subject matter jurisdiction; (2) failing to find he had a state-created liberty
interest in his inmate property; and (3) declining to find the Department
failed to comply with its internal policies in handling his inmate property. We
decline to address Patterson's remaining arguments because resolution of
Patterson's argument regarding timeliness is dispositive.  See Hughes
v. State, 367 S.C. 389, 409, 626 S.E.2d 805, 815 (2006) (finding the
appellate court need not address a remaining issue when the resolution of a
prior issue is dispositive); see also SCACR 220(c) ("The
appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision, or judgment upon any
ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal.").