Lindsey v. SCDOC

CourtListener 10155261ScctappSep 9, 2008

Full text

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Roy Lindsey #67021, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

 Judge Marvin F. Kittrell

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-523

Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed
September 9, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Roy Lindsey, pro se, for Appellant.

Robert W. Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Roy Lindsey
appeals the dismissal of his appeal by the Adminstrative Law Court (ALC).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-610 (Supp. 2007) (stating an appellate court may reverse or
modify the decision of the ALC only if the appellant’s substantive rights have
been prejudiced because the decision is clearly erroneous in light of the
reliable and substantial evidence on the whole record, arbitrary or otherwise
characterized by an abuse of discretion, or affected by other error of law); Rule 59, SCALCR (stating the notice of
appeal from the final decision of an agency to be heard by the ALC must contain
a brief factual basis for each expressly  and specifically asserted
constitutional violation); Rule
62, SCALCR (stating the ALC may dismiss an appeal for failure to set forth the requisite factual basis for the
asserted constitutional violations as required by Rule 59, SCALCR); Al-Shabazz v.
State,  338 S.C. 354, 369, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000) (“An inmate may . . . seek review of [the Department of Corrections’] final decision in
an administrative manner under the [Administrative Procedures Act (APA)].
Placing review of these cases within the ambit of the APA
will ensure that an inmate receives due process, which consists of notice, a
hearing, and judicial review.”).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.