Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-295 - Hendricks 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

Larry Hendricks, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
Ralph K. Anderson, III, Administrative Law Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-295 
Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 16, 2012


AFFIRMED


Larry Edward Hendricks, pro se.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Larry Edward Hendricks appeals the dismissal of his inmate disciplinary action by the Administrative Law Court (ALC), arguing the ALC erred in summarily dismissing his administrative appeal despite (1) a circuit court order remanding the appeal for a determination on its merits and (2) the ALC's failure to order the Department of Corrections (the Department) to make an appearance before the ALC.  Moreover, Hendricks contends no substantial evidence exists to support the Department's disciplinary decision.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the ALC erred in dismissing Hendricks's appeal on remand from the circuit court: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2011) (limiting reversal of the ALC's decision unless "in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . affected by other error of law; . . . [or] arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion"); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(D) (Supp. 2011) ("[The ALC] shall not hear an appeal from an inmate in the custody of the Department . . . involving the loss of the opportunity to earn sentence-related credits.").

2.  As to all other issues: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.


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