Miller v. SC Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Miller v. SC Department of Corrections

DecidedApril 14, 2010

Docket2010-UP-237

StatusUnpublished

This text of Miller v. SC Department of Corrections (Miller v. SC 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

Miller v. SC Department of Corrections, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

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

Zachary Miller, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court
Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-237
Submitted April 1, 2010 Filed April 14, 2010

Affirmed

Zachary Miller, pro se, for Appellant.

Robert W. Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In a disciplinary action, the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) convicted Zachary Miller of sexual misconduct. Miller appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC's) decision affirming his conviction, arguing the ALC erred in finding his conviction is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC erred in finding substantial evidence supported Miller's conviction for sexual misconduct: Anderson v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 343 S.C. 487, 492, 541 S.E.2d 526, 528 (2001) (holding "[t]he findings of an administrative agency are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence" and noting substantial evidence is "evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the [Department] reached").

2. As to whether the Department's failure to follow its policies and procedures violated his state-created liberty interest: 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.

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, 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

Zachary Miller, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court
Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-237
Submitted April 1, 2010 Filed April 14, 2010

Affirmed

Zachary Miller, pro se, for Appellant.

Robert W. Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In a disciplinary action, the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) convicted Zachary Miller of sexual misconduct. Miller appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC's) decision affirming his conviction, arguing the ALC erred in finding his conviction is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC erred in finding substantial evidence supported Miller's conviction for sexual misconduct: Anderson v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 343 S.C. 487, 492, 541 S.E.2d 526, 528 (2001) (holding "[t]he findings of an administrative agency are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence" and noting substantial evidence is "evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the [Department] reached").

2. As to whether the Department's failure to follow its policies and procedures violated his state-created liberty interest: 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.

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miller v. SC Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-sc-department-of-corrections-scctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack