Travon Simuel, 246568 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

Travon Simuel, #246568, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000934

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-106
Submitted March 20, 2025 – Filed March 26, 2025

AFFIRMED

Travon Simuel, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM: Travon Simuel, pro se, appeals the Administrative Law Court's
(ALC's) order summarily dismissing his appeal of the South Carolina Department
of Corrections' (SCDC's) determination that he was a member of a security threat
group (STG) after confiscating a book he received through the mail. On appeal, he
argues his claim implicated a state-created liberty and property interest; thus, he
was entitled to notice prior to his book being censored and being validated as an
STG member. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the ALC properly dismissed Simuel's appeal because whether he was
entitled to notice of a particular security classification does not implicate a
state-created liberty or property interest. 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),
cert. denied (Apr. 16, 2024) (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, 171, 886 S.E.2d 671, 674 (2023) ("The ALC may not grant an
inmate relief from an erroneous administrative decision by SCDC . . . unless the
inmate demonstrates the error deprived him of due process."); id. at 169, 886
S.E.2d at 673 ("[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."); Slezak v. S.C.
Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) ("Summary
dismissal may be appropriate where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a
state-created liberty or property interest."); Skipper v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 370 S.C.
267, 274, 633 S.E.2d 910, 914 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[A]n inmate's complaint must
encompass an infringement of a liberty interest that imposes an atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate to trigger due process guarantees and judicial
review."). Simuel contends his due process rights were violated by SCDC
classifying him as an STG member without notice; however, inmates do not have a
state-created liberty or property interest in a particular security level. See Brown v.
Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 194, 470 S.E.2d 848, 851 (1996) ("The federal constitution
vests no liberty interest in inmates in retaining or receiving any particular security
or custody status as long as the challenged conditions or degree of confinement are
within the sentence imposed and are not otherwise violative of the Constitution.");
id. ("[T]he security and custody classification of state prison inmates is a matter for
state prison official discretion whose exercise is not subject to federal procedural
due process constraints."); id. at 195, 470 S.E.2d at 851 (explaining "[n]either the
state statutes which create and define the powers of the SCDC nor SCDC's
operational classification regulations create the required liberty interest" in one's
security classification).

To the extent Simuel argues his book was not STG material and thus should not
have been flagged as such, we hold this issue is not preserved for appellate review
because it was not raised to and ruled upon by the ALC or raised in his grievances.
See Kiawah Resort Assocs. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 318 S.C. 502, 505, 458 S.E.2d
542, 544 (1995) (holding issues not raised to and ruled on by administrative
agency will not be addressed on appeal by an appellate court); Gatewood v. S.C.
Dep't of Corr., 416 S.C. 304, 324, 785 S.E.2d 600, 611 (Ct. App. 2016) ("An issue
that is not raised to an administrative agency is not preserved for appellate
review . . . .").

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and TURNER and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

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