Moore, Eddie 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

Eddie Moore, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court

Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-456

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October
20, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Eddie Moore, pro se, for Appellant

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Eddie Moore appeals
the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) summary dismissal of his inmate grievance
appeal, alleging the ALC erred in determining his allegations did not implicate
a state-created liberty interest.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authority: Slezak v.
S.C. Dep't of Corrs., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004)
(finding summary dismissal is "appropriate where the inmate's grievance
does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR. Because Moore's grievance does not implicate a state-created
liberty or property interest, we need not reach his remaining arguments.  See Futch
v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d
591, 598 (1999) (finding an appellate court need
not discuss remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive).