Hendricks 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

Larry
Hendricks, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Ralph K. Anderson, III, Administrative
Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-295 

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 16,
2012

AFFIRMED

Larry Edward Hendricks, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Larry
Edward Hendricks appeals the dismissal of his inmate disciplinary action by the
Administrative Law Court (ALC), arguing the ALC erred in summarily dismissing
his administrative appeal despite (1) a circuit court order remanding the
appeal for a determination on its merits and (2) the ALC's failure to order the
Department of Corrections (the Department) to make an appearance before the
ALC.  Moreover, Hendricks contends no substantial evidence exists to support
the Department's disciplinary decision.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the ALC erred in
dismissing Hendricks's appeal on remand from the circuit court: S.C. Code Ann.
§ 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2011) (limiting reversal of the ALC's decision unless
"in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . affected by
other error of law; . . . [or] arbitrary or capricious or characterized by
abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion"); S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2011) ("[The ALC]
shall not hear an appeal from an inmate in the custody of the Department . . . involving
the loss of the opportunity to earn sentence-related credits.").

2.  As to all other
issues: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598,
613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding
an appellate court need not review remaining issues
on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

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

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