Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-213 - Griffin 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

Donald E. Griffin, Jr., Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


Appeal From Administrative Law Court
 John D. Geathers, Administrative Law Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-213
Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 20, 2009


AFFIRMED


Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr., pro se.

Robert Wesley Jacobs, South Carolina Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr. appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) summary dismal of his appeal from the South Carolina

Department of Corrections' (Department) final refusal to change his preferred religion in its administrative records.  Griffin argues the ALC's summary dismissal was improper because he has a state created liberty interest in his religious beliefs.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437, 445, 586 S.E.2d 124, 128 (2003) (finding in the correctional setting, a state created liberty interest is "'generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life'") (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).

Griffin also argues the Department's refusal to change his preferred religious belief unconstitutionally burdens his freedom to practice his religion.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) ("[I]ssues not raised to and ruled on by the [ALC] are not preserved for appellate consideration.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

Hearn, C.J., Pieper and Lockemy, JJ., concur.


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