THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Clayton Allen,        Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections,        Respondent

Appeal From Chesterfield County
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-242
Submitted January 29, 2003 – Filed April 1, 2003

AFFIRMED

Clayton Allen, of Kershaw, for Appellant.

Richard Stroker, Barton J. Vincent, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clayton Allen appeals the dismissal of his appeal from a final decision by the South Carolina Department of Corrections.

FACTS

 Allen, at inmate at Kershaw Correctional Institution, was convicted of possession of marijuana, an internal disciplinary offense, on December 17, 1998.  As a result, Allen lost 1180 days of good time credit.  The South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) issued its final decision on May 11, 1999.  On April 14, 2000, Allen filed a notice of appeal with the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD).  On June 16, 2000, the Department filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000).  Allen filed a motion in opposition.  The Administrative Law Judge dismissed Allen’s appeal on July 6, 2000.  The judge noted the ALJD did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as Allen received the final decision from the Department prior to Al-Shabazz. 

Allen appealed the ALJD order to the circuit court.  After a hearing, the trial judge dismissed the appeal on May 25, 2001.  The trial judge specifically found Allen had not been prejudiced, as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(D) (Supp. 2001).  Allen appeals.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Allen argues the trial court erred in:  (1) dismissing his appeal pursuant to Al-Shabazz and (2) finding no evidence of prejudice.

I.       Dismissal

Allen argues the trial court erred in affirming the ALJD’s decision to rely upon Al-Shabazz in dismissing his appeal.

In Al-Shabazz, the supreme court held that inmates “may obtain review of [the] Department’s final decision in non-collateral or administrative matters under the [Administrative Procedures Act].”  Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. at 384, 527 S.E.2d at 758.    The court also applied this ruling to “all [post-conviction relief] actions filed and all administrative matters in which [the] Department renders a final decision after the date of this opinion.  It also shall apply to all cases currently pending in circuit court or before this Court in which the inmate is similarly situated to petitioner.”  Id. 

Al-Shabazz was filed on February 14, 2000.  Therefore, the ALJD would have jurisdiction over Allen’s appeal from the Department’s final decision in his disciplinary conviction if:  (1) the final decision was issued after February 14, 2000 or (2) if the appeal from the final decision was pending in the circuit court or supreme court on February 14, 2000.  Allen’s appeal in this matter does not satisfy either of these two conditions.  Not only was the final Department decision issued approximately nine months prior to Al-Shabazz, but the trial judge specifically found Allen’s appeal was not pending before any other court.  Accordingly, the trial court did not err in affirming the ALJD’s decision to dismiss Allen’s appeal pursuant to Al-Shabazz.

II.      Prejudice

Allen argues the trial court erred in finding he was not prejudiced by the Department’s actions in the December 1998 disciplinary hearing.  However, Allen misunderstands the trial court order.  The trial court, in finding Allen was not prejudiced pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(D), merely found Allen did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the ALJD’s order of dismissal. 

Allen has not proven the ALJD’s order has resulted in any prejudice within the confines of section 1-23-610(D).  Further, our review of the record, in light of the statute, does not point to any kind of prejudice to Allen’s substantive rights.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(D) (Supp. 2002).  Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding no evidence that Allen had been prejudiced.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the trial court’s order dismissing Allen’s appeal is

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and SHULER, JJ., concur.