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
William McKinnedy #256024, Appellant,
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appeal From Richland County
John McLeod, Administrative Law Court
Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-216
Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 20, 2009
>William McKinnedy, pro se, for Appellant.
>Robert W. Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: William McKinnedy, III, appeals the Administrative Law Court’s (ALC) dismissal of three grievances and the recommended sanction of loss of fifteen days’ good time credit. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the ALC properly dismissed his appeal: Sandin v Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (explaining state created liberty interests are protected by the Due Process clause but “these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't. of Corrs., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) (explaining the ALC has jurisdiction over all inmate grievance appeals that have been properly filed but is not required to hold a hearing in every matter and “[s]ummary dismissal may be appropriate where the inmate’s grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest”).
2. As to whether the ALC erred in recommending a sanction: S.C. Code Ann. § 24-27-200 (2007) (explaining if the ALC determines an inmate has submitted a malicious or frivolous claim, the ALC may, on its own motion, recommend to the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) that an inmate forfeit all or part good conduct credits).
3. As to whether: (1) the Department improperly forfeited fifteen days of good time credit; (2) McKinnedy was denied his right to a fair and impartial hearing following the ALC’s recommendation of a sanction; and (3) he was placed in double jeopardy because there was a rehearing following the first sanction hearing: Rule 210(h), SCACR (“Ordinarily, no point will be considered which does not appear in the record on appeal.”); Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 340, 611 S.E.2d 485, 488 (2005) (explaining that on appeal, the appellant has the burden of presenting a sufficient record to allow review).
HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.