Edwards 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

Lymon Edwards, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

 John McLeod, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-458

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October
21, 2010  

AFFIRMED

Lymon Edwards, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Lymon Edwards appeals his disciplinary conviction for escape,
arguing the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) violated
his right to due process.  Because we find the Department followed its
disciplinary and grievance procedures, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 373, 527 S.E.2d 742, 752 (2000) ("We hold
that Department's disciplinary and grievance procedures are consistent with the
[due process] standards delineated by the Supreme Court [of the United States]
in [Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)].").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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