Davison 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

Michael Davison, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court

Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-023

Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed January
25, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Michael Davison, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael
E. Davison appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order dismissing Davison's
appeal of his prison disciplinary action.  Davison argues the ALC erred when it
misinterpreted the Department of Corrections's policy governing formal
disciplinary actions in specific circumstances.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(a), (d) (Supp. 2009) (granting judicial review to determine
whether "the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced
because the finding, conclusion, or decision is . . . in violation of constitutional
or statutory provisions; . . . [or] affected by other error of law); Al-Shabazz
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 381, 527 S.E.2d 742, 756-57 (2000) (explaining the
"hands off" doctrine permits courts to intercede only "when
infringements complained of by an inmate reach constitutional dimensions"
or when "prison officials have acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or from
personal bias"); and S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. S.C. Dep't of
Health & Envtl. Control, 363 S.C. 67, 75, 610 S.E.2d 482, 486 (2005) ("Courts
defer to the relevant administrative agency's decisions with respect to its own
regulations unless there is a compelling reason to differ.").

AFFIRMED.

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

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