Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-585 - Duncan v. SCDC

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Gene Duncan, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


Appeal From Administrative Law Court
Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-585
Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed December 14, 2009


Affirmed


Gene M. Duncan, Pro Se, for Appellant.

Robert W. Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Gene M. Duncan argues the Administrative Law Court (ALC) erred in finding his issues on appeal were manifestly without merit.  Duncan also maintains the ALC erred in finding the South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) did not violate his right to access the courts and his right to due process.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC erred in finding Duncan's issues on appeal are manifestly without merit: Rule 65, SCALCR (providing "[j]udicial review of any decision of the [ALC] shall be as provided in S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610 (1976)").

2. As to whether the ALC erred in finding the Department did not violate Duncan's right to access the courts: Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996) (holding a inmate must show an actual injury to establish a violation of his constitutional right to access the courts); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 490 (1969) (finding prison officials must allow inmates to assist one another with their legal claims unless reasonable alternatives to assistance are provided).

3. As to whether the ALC erred in finding the Department did not violate Duncan's right to due process: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 373, 527 S.E.2d 742, 752 (2000) (holding the Department's disciplinary and grievance procedures comport with the minimum procedural due process standard delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)).

Affirmed.

Short, Thomas, and Konduros, JJ., concur.


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