Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-017 - Burns 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

Alan Burns, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
Deborah B. Durden, Administrative Law Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-017
Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed January 25, 2012


AFFIRMED


Alan Burns, of North Charleston, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Alan Burns appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order dismissing the Department of Corrections's inmate disciplinary action.  Burns argues the ALC's action deprived him of his due process rights and contravened its own scheduling order in dismissing his appeal before he could file a reply brief.[1]  We affirm[2] pursuant to rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the dismissal violated Burns's due process rights: Olsen v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 57, 69, 663 S.E.2d 497, 503-04 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Procedural due process requirements are not technical, and no particular form of procedure is necessary.  Rather, due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. . . .  The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2. As to whether the dismissal violated the ALC's order: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (permitting this court to reverse the ALC's decision only "if the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced" (emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


[1] Burns raises five issues on appeal, all of which relate to the above contention.  Therefore, we address the five issues as one.

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