Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-150 - Peeks v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

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

Autmus Peeks, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


Appeal From Richland County
 Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-150
Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 30, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Autmus Peeks, of Fairfax, for Appellant.

Robert W. Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Autumus Peeks appeals the Administrative Law Court’s (ALC) decision to dismiss his appeal.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986) (holding mere lack of due care by a state official does not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment); Slezak v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) (citing 515 U.S. 472 (1995)) (explaining the ALC is not required to hold a hearing in every matter, and when appropriate may summarily dismiss an inmate’s grievance which does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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