Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-430 - Stroman v. SC 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Sammie Stroman, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-430
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October 11, 2010


AFFIRMED


Sammie Stroman, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Sammie Stroman appeals his disciplinary convictions for possession of a cell phone or communication device and sexual misconduct, arguing the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) violated his right to due process.  Because we find the Department followed its disciplinary and grievance procedures, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 373, 527 S.E.2d 742, 752 (2000) ("We hold that Department's disciplinary and grievance procedures are consistent with the [due process] standards delineated by the Supreme Court [of the United States] in [Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)].").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 


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