John Garvin, 355509 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

John Garvin, #355509, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001291

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-213
Submitted June 1, 2025 – Filed July 2, 2025

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

John Garvin, pro se.

Christina Catoe Bigelow, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John Garvin, pro se, appeals a decision from the Administrative
Law Court (ALC) dismissing his appeal of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections' (SCDC's) denial of his grievances concerning SCDC's denial of his
prospective visitors' visitation applications. On appeal, Garvin argues the ALC
erred in determining it did not have subject matter jurisdiction, that he did not have
a state-created liberty interest to visit with family members and friends, and that
SCDC's denial of his prospective visitors' visitation applications was not an
arbitrary and capricious act and a denial of his right to due process. We affirm as
modified pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

Initially, we hold the ALC erred in finding it did not have subject matter
jurisdiction to hear the matter because a state-created liberty or property interest is
not required for the ALC to have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Allen v. S.C.
Dep't of Corr., 439 S.C. 164, 171, 886 S.E.2d 671, 674 (2023) ("A claim that
implicates a state-created liberty or property interest is not required for the ALC to
have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal."). However, we hold the ALC did
not err in determining Garvin's appeal failed to implicate a state-created liberty or
property interest because SCDC's policy did not mandate an outcome for SCDC to
approve his prospective visitors' applications without fully completing the
application and providing all the requested information. Accordingly, we affirm
the ALC's dismissal of Garvin'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, 439 S.C. 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."); Allen v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 434 S.C. 114,
119, 862 S.E.2d 268, 270 (Ct. App. 2021) (holding that to establish a state-created
liberty interest, a regulation must explicitly mandate an outcome based on relevant
criteria), aff'd as modified, 439 S.C. 164, 886 S.E.2d 671 (2023); id. (examining
whether SCDC's denial of an inmate's request for visitors whom he did not know
prior to his incarceration violated a state-created liberty interest and finding that
"SCDC's visitation policy lack[s] 'explicitly mandatory language' requiring a
particular outcome when factual predicates are met"); id. ("This policy vests SCDC
with wide discretion; thus, it does not mandate an outcome.").

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. 1

THOMAS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

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