Angelo Ham, 315014 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

Angelo Ham, #315014, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2025-000018

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Crystal Rookard, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-045
Submitted January 29, 2026 – Filed February 4, 2026

AFFIRMED

Angelo Ham, pro se.

Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Angelo Ham, pro se, appeals an order of the Administrative Law
Court (ALC) that granted the South Carolina Department of Corrections' (SCDC's)
motion to dismiss Ham's appeal of SCDC's denial of his grievances where he
requested SCDC replace property he lost during a transfer between correctional
institutions and discipline the officer who packaged his property. On appeal, Ham
argues the ALC erred when it dismissed his appeal because it implicated a
state-created liberty or property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment
and he was denied due process of law when SCDC failed to provide him adequate
notice, a hearing, or "any evidence showing that these property items were not
[Ham's] or him being charged according to SCDC policy/procedures." We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the ALC did not err when it dismissed Ham's appeal because there is
substantial evidence in the record to support the ALC's finding that Ham did not
indicate that SCDC officials deliberately deprived him of life, liberty, or property.
See Major v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole & Pardon Servs., 384 S.C. 457, 464, 682
S.E.2d 795, 799 (2009) ("The ALC's order should be affirmed if supported by
substantial evidence in the record."); id. ("The decision of the ALC should not be
overturned unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence or controlled by some
error of law."); Tennant v. Beaufort Cnty. Sch. Dist., 381 S.C. 617, 620, 674 S.E.2d
488, 490 (2009) ("Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence, but
evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds
to reach the conclusion the agency reached."); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,
328 (1986) (concluding "that the Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a
negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or
property"); Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73, 75 (4th Cir. 1995) ("The term 'deprive,' as
employed in the Fourteenth Amendment, suggests more than a mere failure to take
reasonable care: it connotes an intentional or deliberate denial of life, liberty, or
property."); Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm'n, 321 S.C. 219, 226,
467 S.E.2d 913, 917 (1996) ("Furthermore, the burden is on appellants to prove
convincingly that the agency's decision is unsupported by the evidence.").
Consequently, because Ham's appeal does not implicate a liberty or property
interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, he could not have been denied
due process. See Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 369, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750
(2000) ("The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation
of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and
property." (quoting The Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569
(1972)); Allen v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 439 S.C. 164, 171, 886 S.E.2d 671, 674
(2023) ("[T]he ALC is not required to hold a hearing in every matter and may
summarily dismiss an inmate's grievance if it does not implicate a state-created
liberty or property interest sufficient to trigger procedural due process
guarantees.").

AFFIRMED.1

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
THOMAS, MCDONALD, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.