Bernard Jackson, 210745 v. SCDC
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Date FiledNovember 4, 2026
Docket2026-UP-347
StatusUnpublished
π° News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
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
Bernard Jackson, #210745, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2024-002004
Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Crystal Rookard, Administrative Law Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-347
Submitted June 23, 2026 β Filed July 8, 2026
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled November 4, 2026
AFFIRMED
Bernard Jackson, pro se.
Christina Catoe Bigelow, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this wage dispute between Bernard Jackson and the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC), Jackson appeals an order of the
Administrative Law Court (ALC), arguing it erred in dismissing his appeal after
notification that the parties were in continuing negotiations. Jackson argues he is
entitled to ten percent of his earnings to be deposited into his long-term savings
account.1 We affirm.
Jackson signed a settlement agreement with DOC and a stipulation of dismissal.
The agreement provided:
The above stated amount represents the total settlement
which will be placed in Inmate's E.H. Cooper Inmate
Account. The required statutory deductions for victim
restitution and room and board have already been
subtracted . . . . The above stated amount is the total
settlement and no additional funds will be . . . placed into
long-term savings.
The funds were deposited into Jackson's inmate account, and the stipulation of
dismissal was filed with the ALC. Jackson filed an objection to the stipulation of
dismissal. By order filed October 14, 2024, the ALC dismissed the appeal based
on the stipulation of dismissal. This appeal followed.
Rule 43(k) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
No agreement between counsel affecting the proceedings
in an action shall be binding unless reduced to the form
of a consent order or written stipulation signed by
counsel and entered in the record, or unless made in open
court and noted upon the record, or reduced to writing
and signed by the parties and their counsel.
"To be enforceable, settlement agreements must either be entered into the court's
record or acknowledged in open court and placed upon the record." Motley v.
Williams, 374 S.C. 107, 110, 647 S.E.2d 244, 246 (Ct. App. 2007); see Ashfort
Corp. v. Palmetto Constr. Grp., Inc., 318 S.C. 492, 494, 458 S.E.2d 533, 534
(1995) ("In our opinion, Rule 43(k) is applicable to settlement agreements . . . .");
id. at 493β94, 458 S.E.2d at 534 ("Rule 43(k) is intended to prevent disputes as to
the existence and terms of agreements regarding pending litigation."). Here, the
parties entered into an agreement and filed a stipulation of dismissal with the ALC.
1
Section 24-3-40(A)(5) (2025) of the South Carolina Code requires DOC to deduct
ten percent from a prisoner's wages to "be held in an interest bearing escrow
account for the benefit of the prisoner."
We find no error by the ALC in dismissing pursuant to the stipulation of dismissal.
See Kirkland v. Allcraft Steel Co., 329 S.C. 389, 392, 496 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1998)
("A stipulation is an agreement, admission[,] or concession made in judicial
proceedings by the parties thereto or their attorneys. Stipulations, of course, are
binding upon those who make them." (internal citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.2
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.