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

Fred Freeman, 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Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-371
Submitted June 1, 2010 � Filed July 21, 2010���

AFFIRMED

Fred Freeman, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Fred Freeman appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order affirming the South Carolina Department of Corrections' (the Department) denial of his grievance.� He argues his due process rights were violated because the Department (1) denied him access to the courts; (2) misappropriated funds in his E.H. Cooper Trust Account; and (3) deprived him of hygiene kits.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) (explaining that in an appeal from the final decision of an administrative agency, this court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the ALC as to findings of fact; however, it "may reverse or modify decisions which are controlled by error of law or are clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the record as a whole"); Id. ("In determining whether the AL[C]'s decision was supported by substantial evidence, this court need only find, considering the record as a whole, evidence from which reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion that the AL[C] reached."); �Id.� ("The mere possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent a finding from being supported by substantial evidence."). ��

AFFIRMED.

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

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