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

Michael Davison, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
Carolyn C. Matthews, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-023
Submitted January 1, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Michael Davison, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael E. Davison appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order dismissing Davison's appeal of his prison disciplinary action.  Davison argues the ALC erred when it misinterpreted the Department of Corrections's policy governing formal disciplinary actions in specific circumstances.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(a), (d) (Supp. 2009) (granting judicial review to determine whether "the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is . . . in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . [or] affected by other error of law); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 381, 527 S.E.2d 742, 756-57 (2000) (explaining the "hands off" doctrine permits courts to intercede only "when infringements complained of by an inmate reach constitutional dimensions" or when "prison officials have acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or from personal bias"); and S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 363 S.C. 67, 75, 610 S.E.2d 482, 486 (2005) ("Courts defer to the relevant administrative agency's decisions with respect to its own regulations unless there is a compelling reason to differ.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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