Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2011-186606 Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-626
11-28-2012
Maurice L. Morant, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Maurice L. Morant, pro se. Christopher D. Florian, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.
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.
Appeal From Administrative Law Court
Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative Law Judge
AFFIRMED
Maurice L. Morant, pro se.PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the South Carolina Department of Corrections violated Morant's due process right: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 371, 527 S.E.2d 742, 751 (2000) ("[D]ue process in a prison disciplinary proceeding involving serious misconduct requires: (1) that advance written notice of the charge be given to the inmate at least twenty-four hours before the hearing; (2) that factfinders must prepare a written statement of the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action; (3) that the inmate should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, provided there is no undue hazard to institutional safety or correctional goals; (4) that counsel substitute (a fellow inmate or a prison employee) should be allowed to help illiterate inmates or in complex cases an inmate cannot handle alone; and (5) that the persons hearing the matter, who may be prison officials or employees, must be impartial." (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974))). 2. As to whether substantial evidence supported the guilty verdict: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(e) (Supp. 2011) (providing that on review of an appeal from the Administrative Law Court (ALC), this court looks to see whether the ALC's findings are supported by substantial evidence); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 756 ("Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that, considering the record as a whole, a reasonable mind would accept to support an administrative agency's action."); id. ("It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but is something less than the weight of the evidence."); id. ("Furthermore, the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent a court from concluding that substantial evidence supports an administrative agency's finding."). 3. As to the remaining issues: Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 379, 527 S.E.2d at 755 (stating that issues or arguments not raised to and ruled upon by the ALC are not preserved for review). AFFIRMED.
Christopher D. Florian, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.