Ridley 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

Richard Ridley, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213507

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-079
Submitted January 1, 2014 – Filed February 26, 2014

AFFIRMED

Shanika Kenyetta Johnson, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Richard Ridley, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234
(Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal of the final decision of an administrative agency,
the standard of appellate review is whether the [Administrative Law Court's
(ALC)] findings are supported by substantial evidence."); id. ("Although this court
shall not substitute its judgment for that of the AL[C] as to findings of fact, we
may reverse or modify decisions which are controlled by error of law or are clearly
erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the record as a whole."); id. ("In
determining whether the AL[C]'s decision was supported by substantial evidence,
this court need only find, considering the record as a whole, evidence from which
reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion that the AL[C] reached."); S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2012) ("The review of the [ALC's] order must be
confined to the record.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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