Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-483 - Lawson 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

Frank Lawson, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-483
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed November 4, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Frank Lawson, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Frank Lawson appeals an order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) affirming the South Carolina Department of Corrections's (the Department) determination he violated its disciplinary code by refusing or failing to obey orders.  On appeal, Lawson argues the ALC (1) erred in finding substantial evidence supported the Department's determination and (2) violated his right to due process because its determination is based on insufficient evidence.  Because substantial evidence supports the ALC's decision, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2009) (providing this court may not substitute "its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact"); § 1-23-610(B)(e) (providing this court will reverse the ALC's decision if "the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is . . . clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record").[2]

AFFIRMED.

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


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

[2] Because substantial evidence supports Lawson's disciplinary conviction, we need not reach his due process argument.  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 a prior issue is dispositive).