Plough 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

Stephen Plough, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative
Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-484 

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October
28, 2011

AFFIRMED

Stephen Plough, pro se, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Stephen Plough, a civilly committed sexually violent
predator (SVP), appeals the dismissal of his Department of Corrections (DOC)
grievance by the Administrative Law Court (ALC).  He argues he is entitled to
grievance procedures to redress DOC's denying him a prevailing wage when he was
incarcerated.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (limiting reversal of an ALC decision unless
"in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . [or] clearly
erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the
whole record"); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2010) (providing the
ALC "shall preside over all appeals from final decisions of contested
cases"); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310(3) (2005) (defining "contested
case" as a proceeding "in which the legal rights, duties, or
privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after
an opportunity for hearing"); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 375,
527 S.E.2d 742, 753 (2000) ("An inmate brings a contested case for the
purposes of judicial review when he challenges a disciplinary outcome,
calculation of sentence related credits, custody status, or other condition of
imprisonment."); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-100(A) (Supp. 2010) ("If the
court or jury determines that the person is a [SVP], the person must be
committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health . . .
." (emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.

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

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