Cleveland 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

George Cleveland, III, #35770,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000183

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-506
Submitted November 1, 2016 – Filed December 7, 2016

AFFIRMED

George Cleveland, III, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437, 443, 586 S.E.2d 124, 127
(2003) (finding the only way the ALC can obtain subject matter jurisdiction over
an inmate's grievance is when it "implicates a [state-created] liberty interest
sufficient to trigger procedural due process guarantees"); Howard v. S.C. Dep't of
Corr., 399 S.C. 618, 629, 733 S.E.2d 211, 217 (2012) ("[A]n inmate's loss of the
opportunity to earn sentence-related credits does not implicate a state-created
liberty interest."); id. ("[T]here is a difference between an inmate's forfeiture of
accrued sentence-related credits versus the withholding of unearned, potentially
available sentence-related credits. Clearly, an inmate does not acquire an interest
in sentence-related credits until he or she earns them."); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of
Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) ("[T]he [ALC] is not
required to hold a hearing in every matter. Summary dismissal may be appropriate
where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property
interest.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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