Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-456 - Moore, Eddie 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

Eddie Moore, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-456
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October 20, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Eddie Moore, pro se, for Appellant

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Eddie Moore appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) summary dismissal of his inmate grievance appeal, alleging the ALC erred in determining his allegations did not implicate a state-created liberty interest.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corrs., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) (finding summary dismissal is "appropriate where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest").

AFFIRMED.

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


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. Because Moore's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest, we need not reach his remaining arguments.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (finding an appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive).