Leamon v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 9, 2016
• Docket: 2016-UP-455
• Status: Unpublished

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

Jamie Leamon, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001674

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-455 Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed November 9, 2016

AFFIRMED

Jamie Leamon, pro se.

Stephen Hollis Lunsford, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 369, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000) ("[A]n inmate may seek review of [SCDC's] final decision in an administrative matter under the [South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act]."); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 507 (2004) (noting the Administrative Law Court (ALC) "has subject matter jurisdiction to hear appeals from the final decision of [SCDC] in a non-collateral or administrative matter"); id. ("Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the [ALC's] 'power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.'" (quoting Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 237-38, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994))); id. ("Further, the [ALC] has appellate jurisdiction over any matter where the procedural prerequisites for perfecting such an appeal have been met."); id. at 331, 605 S.E.2d at 508 ("While the [ALC] has jurisdiction over all inmate grievance appeals that have been properly filed, we emphasize that the [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

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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