Morant 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

Maurice L. Morant, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-186606

Appeal From Administrative Law Court
Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-626
Submitted November 1, 2012 – Filed November 28, 2012

AFFIRMED

Maurice L. Morant, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of the South Carolina Department
of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the South Carolina Department of Corrections violated Morant's
due process right: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 371, 527 S.E.2d 742, 751
(2000) ("[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." (citing Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974))).

2. As to whether substantial evidence supported the guilty verdict: S.C. Code Ann.
§ 1-23-610(B)(e) (Supp. 2011) (providing that on review of an appeal from the
Administrative Law Court (ALC), this court looks to see whether the ALC's
findings are supported by substantial evidence); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527
S.E.2d at 756 ("Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that, considering the
record as a whole, a reasonable mind would accept to support an administrative
agency's action."); id. ("It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but is
something less than the weight of the evidence."); id. ("Furthermore, the possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent a
court from concluding that substantial evidence supports an administrative
agency's finding.").

3. As to the remaining issues: Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 379, 527 S.E.2d at 755
(stating that issues or arguments not raised to and ruled upon by the ALC are not
preserved for review).

AFFIRMED. 1

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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