Glenn 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

John Glenn, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-182

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 19,
2011   

AFFIRMED

Jason Paul Peavy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  John Glenn appeals a dismissal of his grievance appeal
by the Administrative Law Court (the ALC) for failure to assert a state-created
liberty or property interest.  Glenn argues he asserted a state-created liberty
interest because his conviction of possession of marijuana while incarcerated
resulted in the loss of privileges, reclassification to a more secure status,
and transfer to a more secure facility.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (providing that a review of the ALC's decision
is "confined to the record" and this court may reverse the decision
if substantial evidence does not support the ALC's findings are not supported
by substantial evidence or the ALC's decision is affected by an error of law); Furtick
v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 374 S.C. 334, 340, 649 S.E.2d 35, 38 (2007) (holding
the ALC may summarily dismiss a grievance appeal "where the inmate's
grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest"
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.,
355 S.C. 437, 445 n.5, 586 S.E.2d 124, 128 n.5 (2003) ("[S]tate-created
liberty interests . . . are not necessarily limited to sentence
credit issues and major disciplinary decisions. . . .  However, . . . these interests will
generally be limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes
atypical or significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Al-Shabazz
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 381-82, 52 S.E.2d 742, 756-57 (1999) (providing
that an inmate does not have a state-created liberty interest in a particular custody
status or location of incarceration (citing Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C.
189, 194-95, 470 S.E.2d 848, 851 (1996); Crowe v. Leeke, 273 S.C. 763,
763-64, 259 S.E.2d 614, 614-15 (1979)); Brown, 322 S.C. at 194-95, 470
S.E.2d at 851 (holding that an inmate has no state-created liberty interest in
a particular security status).

AFFIRMED.

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

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