Griffin v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Griffin v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

DecidedMay 20, 2009

Docket2009-UP-213

StatusUnpublished

This text of Griffin v. South Carolina Department of Corrections (Griffin v. South Carolina Department of Corrections) 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

Griffin v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Donald E. Griffin, Jr., Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court
John D. Geathers, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-213
Submitted April 1, 2009 Filed May 20, 2009

AFFIRMED

Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr., pro se.

Robert Wesley Jacobs, South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr. appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) summary dismal of his appeal from the South Carolina

Department of Corrections' (Department) final refusal to change his preferred religion in its administrative records. Griffin argues the ALC's summary dismissal was improper because he has a state created liberty interest in his religious beliefs. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437, 445, 586 S.E.2d 124, 128 (2003) (finding in the correctional setting, a state created liberty interest is "'generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life'") (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).

Griffin also argues the Department's refusal to change his preferred religious belief unconstitutionally burdens his freedom to practice his religion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) ("[I]ssues not raised to and ruled on by the [ALC] are not preserved for appellate consideration.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

Hearn, C.J., Pieper and Lockemy, 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Donald E. Griffin, Jr., Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court
John D. Geathers, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-213
Submitted April 1, 2009 Filed May 20, 2009

AFFIRMED

Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr., pro se.

Robert Wesley Jacobs, South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr. appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) summary dismal of his appeal from the South Carolina

Department of Corrections' (Department) final refusal to change his preferred religion in its administrative records. Griffin argues the ALC's summary dismissal was improper because he has a state created liberty interest in his religious beliefs. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437, 445, 586 S.E.2d 124, 128 (2003) (finding in the correctional setting, a state created liberty interest is "'generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life'") (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).

Griffin also argues the Department's refusal to change his preferred religious belief unconstitutionally burdens his freedom to practice his religion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) ("[I]ssues not raised to and ruled on by the [ALC] are not preserved for appellate consideration.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

Hearn, C.J., Pieper and Lockemy, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Griffin v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-south-carolina-department-of-corrections-scctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack