Lawson 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

Frank Lawson, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

John D. Geathers, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-483

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed November
4, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Frank Lawson, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Frank
Lawson appeals an order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) affirming the South
Carolina Department of Corrections's (the Department) determination he violated
its disciplinary code by refusing or failing to obey orders.  On appeal, Lawson
argues the ALC (1) erred in finding substantial evidence supported the
Department's determination and (2) violated his right to due process because
its determination is based on insufficient evidence.  Because substantial
evidence supports the ALC's decision, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2009) (providing this court may not substitute
"its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of the
evidence on questions of fact"); § 1-23-610(B)(e) (providing this court
will reverse the ALC's decision if "the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the
finding, conclusion, or decision is . . . clearly erroneous in view of the
reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record").[2]

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

[2] Because substantial evidence supports Lawson's
disciplinary conviction, we need not reach his due process argument.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518
S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (finding an appellate
court need not discuss remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is
dispositive).