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

Lymon Edwards, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal From Administrative Law Court
 John McLeod, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-458
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October 21, 2010  

AFFIRMED

Lymon Edwards, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Lymon Edwards appeals his disciplinary conviction for escape, arguing the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) violated his right to due process.  Because we find the Department followed its disciplinary and grievance procedures, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 373, 527 S.E.2d 742, 752 (2000) ("We hold that Department's disciplinary and grievance procedures are consistent with the [due process] standards delineated by the Supreme Court [of the United States] in [Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)].").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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