Ortiz 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

Ernesto Ortiz, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-032

Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed January
25, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Ernesto Ortiz, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Ernesto Ortiz appeals an order of the
Administrative Law Court (ALC) summarily dismissing his appeal of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections' (the Department) denial of his inmate
grievance.  On appeal, Ortiz argues the ALC was required to rule on the merits
of his appeal because a state-created property interest was at stake.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities:  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) (explaining summary dismissal is
appropriate where the appeal does not implicate an inmate's state-created
liberty or property interest).[2]

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

[2] We note the ALC properly dismissed Ortiz's appeal but
erred by finding it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction.  The ALC has
jurisdiction over all inmate grievance appeals that have been properly filed
but may summarily dismiss on the merits where the grievance does not implicate
a state-created liberty or property interest.  See 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) ("In light of our decision that [the inmate's] grievance did not
implicate a state-created liberty interest, we find the [ALC] had jurisdiction
to dismiss the appeal on the merits.").  Nonetheless, because the
grievance did not implicate a state-created property interest, the ALC's error
does not affect the disposition of this appeal.