Davis 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

Joe Davis, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-188
Submitted April 1, 2011 Filed April 28, 2011

AFFIRMED

Joe Davis, pro se, of Ridgeland, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this inmate appeal, Joe Davis argues the administrative law court (the ALC) erred in dismissing his appeal of his conviction for possession of a cell phone while incarcerated.  The ALC dismissed the appeal because Davis failed to provide a proof of service notifying the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) of his appeal to the ALC within thirty days receipt of the Department's final decision.  On appeal to this court, Davis contends his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence and the Department violated his constitutional rights to free speech and procedural due process.  We affirm[1] pursuant to rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. S.C. Dep't of Heath & Envtl. Control, 363 S.C. 67, 76, 610 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2005) ("A ruling not challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the ruling." (citation omitted)); see also ALC Rule 59(D), ("The notice of appeal from the final decision to be heard by the [ALC] shall be filed with the [ALC] and a copy served on each party, including the agency, within thirty . . . days of receipt of the decision from which the appeal is taken.  The notice . . . shall contain the following information: . . . a certificate showing the service of the notice of appeal on all parties."); ALC Rule 62 ("Upon motion of any party, or on its own motion, an Administrative Law Judge may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for appeals."). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., KONDUROS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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