Duncan 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

Gene Duncan, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-585

Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed
December 14, 2009

Affirmed

Gene M. Duncan, Pro Se, for Appellant.

Robert W. Jacobs,
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Gene M. Duncan argues the Administrative
Law Court (ALC) erred in finding his issues on appeal were manifestly without
merit.  Duncan also maintains the ALC erred in finding the South Carolina Department
of Corrections (Department) did not violate his right to access the courts and his
right to due process.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC erred in finding Duncan's issues on
appeal are manifestly without merit: Rule 65, SCALCR (providing "[j]udicial review of any decision of the [ALC] shall
be as provided in S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610 (1976)").

2. As to whether the ALC erred in finding the Department did not
violate Duncan's right to access the courts: Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (holding a inmate must show an
actual injury to establish a violation of his constitutional right to access
the courts); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 490 (1969) (finding prison
officials must allow inmates to assist one another with their legal claims unless
reasonable alternatives to assistance are provided).

3.
As to whether the ALC erred in finding the Department did not violate Duncan's
right to due process: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 373, 527 S.E.2d
742, 752 (2000) (holding the Department's disciplinary and grievance
procedures comport with the minimum procedural due process standard delineated
in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)).

Affirmed.

Short, Thomas, and
Konduros, JJ.,
concur.

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