Watford v. SCDC

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

Perry Watford, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000768

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-241 Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015

AFFIRMED

Perry Watford, pro se.

Daniel John Crooks, III, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal of the final decision of an administrative agency, the standard of appellate review is whether the [Administrative Law Court's] findings are supported by substantial evidence."); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) ("Summary dismissal may be appropriate where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest."); Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 195, 470 S.E.2d 848, 851 (1996) ("[An inmate] has no liberty interest in his security and custody classification."); Skipper v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 370 S.C. 267, 275, 633 S.E.2d 910, 914 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[T]he classifications . . . of prisoners in such institutions are matters of prison administration, within the discretion of the prison administrators, and do not require fact-finding hearings as a prerequisite for the exercise of such discretion." (quoting Altizer v. Paderick, 569 F.2d 812, 812-13 (4th Cir. 1978))).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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