Thomas Thompson, 80681 v. SCDPPPS

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 2024-002022
• Status: Unpublished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

Thomas Thompson, #80681, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2024-002022

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Robert Lawrence Reibold, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-046 Submitted January 29, 2026 – Filed February 4, 2026

AFFIRMED

Thomas Thompson, pro se.

General Counsel Matthew C. Buchanan, of the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Thompson, pro se, appeals an order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) dismissing his appeal of a decision by the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services (SCDPPPS) to deny him parole and an order of the ALC denying his motion to reinstate his appeal. On appeal, Thompson argues (1) he made a good faith effort to file his notice of appeal in a timely manner and (2) he, as a pro se litigant, was held to a higher standard than he should be expected to meet. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold Thompson's arguments are not properly before this court on appeal because he did not include or discuss authority to support the arguments raised in his brief. See Bryson v. Bryson, 378 S.C. 502, 510, 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority."); Rule 208(b)(1)(E), SCACR (stating the "particular issue to be addressed" in an appellant's brief shall be "followed by discussion and citations of authority"). Accordingly, we affirm the ALC's order.

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

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