Stegall 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

James Stegall, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From the Administrative Law Court
Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-234 
Submitted May 1, 2011 Filed May 19, 2011

AFFIRMED

James Stegall, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James Stegall appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order affirming the Department of Corrections's inmate disciplinary action.  He argues the ALC erred in holding he had waived his limited right to request witnesses.  We affirm[1] 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."); Sanford v. S.C. State Ethics Comm'n, 385 S.C. 483, 496-97, 685 S.E.2d 600, 607 (2009) (holding that waiver is a "voluntary and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right" and that the "determination of whether one's actions constitute wavier is a question of fact").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur. 

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