Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-523 - Lindsey v. SCDOC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Roy Lindsey #67021, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
 Judge Marvin F. Kittrell


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-523
Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed September 9, 2008   


AFFIRMED


Roy Lindsey, pro se, for Appellant.

Robert W. Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Roy Lindsey appeals the dismissal of his appeal by the Adminstrative Law Court (ALC).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610 (Supp. 2007) (stating an appellate court may reverse or modify the decision of the ALC only if the appellant’s substantive rights have been prejudiced because the decision is clearly erroneous in light of the reliable and substantial evidence on the whole record, arbitrary or otherwise characterized by an abuse of discretion, or affected by other error of law); Rule 59, SCALCR (stating the notice of appeal from the final decision of an agency to be heard by the ALC must contain a brief factual basis for each expressly  and specifically asserted constitutional violation); Rule 62, SCALCR (stating the ALC may dismiss an appeal for failure to set forth the requisite factual basis for the asserted constitutional violations as required by Rule 59, SCALCR); Al-Shabazz v. State,  338 S.C. 354, 369, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000) (“An inmate may . . . seek review of [the Department of Corrections’] final decision in an administrative manner under the [Administrative Procedures Act (APA)]. Placing review of these cases within the ambit of the APA will ensure that an inmate receives due process, which consists of notice, a hearing, and judicial review.”).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


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