Barton 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

Cornelius Barton, Appellant,

v.
South Carolina Department of
Corrections, Respondent.

__________

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Court Judge

__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-375
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed June 20, 2012
__________

AFFIRMED
__________

Cornelius Barton, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Cornelius Barton appeals the Administrative Law
Court's (ALC) dismissal of his inmate disciplinary action, arguing the ALC
erred in using a facially unconstitutional statute to dismiss his appeal, and the
Department of Corrections (the Department) denied him due process in
failing to provide him a written notice of his charges. We affirm1 pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC erred in dismissing Barton's appeal: Rule
220(c), SCACR ("The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision
or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal.");
Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004)
(holding the ALC has the discretion to summarily dismiss inmate grievance
appeals that do "not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest").2

2. As to whether the Department denied Barton due process in
failing to provide him a written notice of his charges: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-
23-610(B) (Supp. 2011) (explaining that an appellate court may only reverse
a decision of the ALC if the substantive rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced).

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
2
Barton's conviction and resulting punishment did not involve the loss of
accrued good time credits or the opportunity to earn good time credits.
Therefore, the ALC was permitted to hear the appeal and erred in basing the
decision to dismiss on section 1-23-600(D) of the South Carolina Code
(Supp. 2011). However, because no liberty interest was implicated by
Barton's appeal, the ALC was not required to hold a hearing and did not
abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing the appeal. See Sullivan v. S.C.
Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437, 445 n.5, 586 S.E.2d 124, 128 n.5 (2003)
(recognizing that a condition of confinement could implicate a state-created
liberty interest but holding that "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 and alterations omitted)); see also Skipper v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 370
S.C. 267, 279 n.5, 633 S.E.2d 910, 917 n.5 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding
summary dismissal may be appropriate when the inmate's grievance does not
implicate a state-created liberty or property interest).
AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.