Govan 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

Randy Govan, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

 John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-029  

Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed January
26, 2011

AFFIRMED

Randy Govan, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Randy Govan
appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order dismissing
his inmate grievance appeal.  Govan argues the ALC erred in determining (1) he
was afforded minimal due process in his prison disciplinary action and (2) the
Department of Corrections's (the Department) decision was supported by
substantial evidence.  We affirm.[1]

1.  We hold the ALC correctly
dismissed Govan's appeal regarding his denial of due process claim.  First, minimal
due process in the prison disciplinary context does not require the Department
to provide a written statement explaining why the hearing officer did not find
specific evidence credible.  See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 564 (1974) (requiring only a "'written statement by the factfinders
as to the evidence relied on and reasons' for the disciplinary action"
(citation omitted)).  The record of Govan's hearing, in which the hearing
officer acknowledges the evidence presented by Govan, serves as an adequate written
statement. 

Second,
Govan's allegation that the hearing officer was biased lacks merit.  An
adjudicator in an administrative proceeding is entitled to a "presumption
of honesty and integrity."  Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47
(1975).  Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit has held "actual bias or a high
probability of bias must be present before due process concerns are
raised."  Marshall v. Cuomo, 192 F.3d 473, 484 (4th Cir. 1999).  Here,
the hearing officer was one of many defendants in a federal civil rights
action, and Govan fails to explain what his claim was and specifically why the
hearing officer's alleged bias would violate the minimal due process required
in the prison disciplinary context.  Minimal due process tolerates these facts
in light of the Department's institutional needs.

2.  We hold the ALC
properly found substantial evidence existed for the hearing officer to find Govan guilty of threatening a prison
officer.  The only fact disputed at the hearing was what Govan said to the prison
officer, and the hearing officer relied on the prison officer's account.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(e) (Supp. 2009) (requiring the reviewing court to
affirm if the finding is "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record"); Al-Shabazz
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 380, 527 S.E.2d 742, 756 (2000) ("Substantial
evidence is relevant evidence that, considering the record as a whole, a
reasonable mind would accept to support an administrative agency's
action.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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