Robert Deal, Jr., 301062 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

Robert Deal, Jr., #301062, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2025-001166

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-213
Submitted April 1, 2026 – Filed May 6, 2026

AFFIRMED

Robert Deal, Jr., pro se.

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

PER CURIAM: Robert Deal, Jr., pro se, appeals a decision from the
Administrative Law Court (ALC) dismissing his appeal, which stemmed from a
determination by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) that he
was not entitled to be paid pursuant to the prevailing wage statute1 for work he

1
S.C. Code Ann. § 24-3-430(D) (2025).
performed while incarcerated. On appeal, Deal argues the ALC erred in
dismissing his appeal because his work fell under the prevailing wage statute. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold substantial evidence supports the ALC's finding that Deal failed to show
the deprivation of a state-created liberty or property interest because evidence in
the record did not indicate Deal performed the work at issue pursuant to a
non-profit organization or private entity. Accordingly, the ALC properly
dismissed Deal's appeal. See Buchanan v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole, & Pardon
Servs., 442 S.C. 393, 401, 899 S.E.2d 600, 605 (Ct. App. 2023) (explaining this
court may reverse or modify the decision of the ALC "only if substantive rights of
the appellant have been prejudiced because the decision is clearly erroneous in
light of the reliable and substantial evidence on the whole record, arbitrary or
otherwise characterized by an abuse of discretion, or affected by other error of
law"); Allen v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 439 S.C. 164, 169, 886 S.E.2d 671, 673 (2023)
("[A]n inmate must allege the denial of a state-created liberty interest to be entitled
to relief for the denial of his due process rights."); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-3-430(A)
(Supp. 2025) (allowing the SCDC director to "establish a program involving the
use of inmate labor by a nonprofit organization or in private industry for the
manufacturing and processing of goods, wares, or merchandise or the provision of
services or another business or commercial enterprise"); § 24-3-430(D) ("No
inmate participating in the program may earn less than the prevailing wage for
work of similar nature in the private sector."); S.C. Code Ann. § 24-1-295 (2025)
(stating SCDC may "negotiate the wage to be paid for inmate labor provided under
prison industry service work contracts and export work contracts, and these wages
may be less than the prevailing wage for work of a similar nature in the private
sector").

AFFIRMED.2

GEATHERS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.