Freeman 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

Fred Freeman, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

 Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-371

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 21,
2010   

AFFIRMED

Fred Freeman, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Fred
Freeman appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order affirming the South
Carolina Department of Corrections' (the Department) denial of his grievance. 
He argues his due process
rights were violated because the Department (1) denied him access to the
courts; (2) misappropriated funds in his E.H. Cooper Trust Account; and (3)
deprived him of hygiene kits.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Sanders v.
S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App.
2008) (explaining that in an appeal from the final decision of an
administrative agency, this court shall not substitute its judgment for that of
the ALC as to findings of fact; however, it "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.");
 Id.  ("The mere possibility of drawing two inconsistent
conclusions from the evidence does not prevent a finding from being supported
by substantial evidence.").   

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., KONDUROS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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