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
Stephen Plough, Appellant,
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative Law Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-484
Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October 28, 2011
Stephen Plough, pro se, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Stephen Plough, a civilly committed sexually violent predator (SVP), appeals the dismissal of his Department of Corrections (DOC) grievance by the Administrative Law Court (ALC). He argues he is entitled to grievance procedures to redress DOC's denying him a prevailing wage when he was incarcerated. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (limiting reversal of an ALC decision unless "in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . [or] clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record"); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2010) (providing the ALC "shall preside over all appeals from final decisions of contested cases"); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310(3) (2005) (defining "contested case" as a proceeding "in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing"); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 375, 527 S.E.2d 742, 753 (2000) ("An inmate brings a contested case for the purposes of judicial review when he challenges a disciplinary outcome, calculation of sentence related credits, custody status, or other condition of imprisonment."); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-100(A) (Supp. 2010) ("If the court or jury determines that the person is a [SVP], the person must be committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health . . . ." (emphasis added)).
FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.