Cleveland v. SCDC

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Cleveland v. SCDC

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

Docket2016-UP-506

StatusUnpublished

This text of Cleveland v. SCDC (Cleveland v. SCDC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cleveland v. SCDC, (S.C. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-506 Submitted November 1, 2016 – Filed December 7, 2016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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cleveland v. SCDC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-v-scdc-scctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack