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

Zachary Miller, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

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

Unpublished Opinion No.� 2010-UP-237
Submitted April 1, 2010 � Filed April 14, 2010

Affirmed

Zachary Miller, pro se, for Appellant.

Robert W. Jacobs, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� In a disciplinary action, the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) convicted Zachary Miller of sexual misconduct.� Miller appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC's) decision affirming his conviction, arguing the ALC erred in finding his conviction is supported by substantial evidence.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the ALC erred in finding substantial evidence supported Miller's conviction for sexual misconduct: �Anderson v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 343 S.C. 487, 492, 541 S.E.2d 526, 528 (2001) (holding "[t]he findings of an administrative agency are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence" and noting substantial evidence is "evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the [Department] reached").

2. As to whether the Department's failure to follow its policies and procedures violated his state-created liberty interest: Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) ("[I]ssues not raised to and ruled on by the [ALC] are not preserved for appellate consideration.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.�

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