Opinion
2018-UP-305
07-05-2018
Jerome Owens, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-000694
Jerome Owens, pro se. Annie Laurie Rumler, 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.
Submitted May 1, 2018
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court Harold W. Funderburk, Jr., Administrative Law Judge.
Jerome Owens, pro se.
Annie Laurie Rumler, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Jerome Owens appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC's) dismissal of his appeal from the final ruling of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department). We affirm 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 [the] Department's final decision in an administrative matter under the [Administrative Procedures Act]."); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2017) ("The review of the [ALC's] order must be confined to the record."); id. (stating this court may reverse the ALC if its decision is "affected by [an] error of law" or "characterized by abuse of discretion" and appellant's substantive rights have been prejudiced as a result); SCALC Rule 51 (stating the section of the Rules of Procedure for the Administrative Law Court on special appeals "shall apply exclusively in matters heard on appeal from final decisions pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State"); SCALC Rule 59 (stating the notice of appeal must be filed with the ALC and served on each party, including the Department, within thirty days of receipt of the decision from which the appeal is taken); SCALC Rule 62 (providing that upon "its own motion, [the ALC] may dismiss an appeal . . . for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for appeals, including the failure to comply with any of the [applicable] time limits").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Although we do not reach the merits of Owens's underlying claim, we note nothing prevents him from filing another grievance challenging the Department's calculation of his sentence.
LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.