Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jordan v. Dep't of Corrections

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


March 19, 2010

THOMAS JORDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted March 3, 2010

Before Judges Fisher and Sapp-Peterson.

Appellant is a prison inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections. On December 26, 2008, while incarcerated at the Garden State Youth Correctional Facility in Yardville, appellant engaged in conduct that led to charges that he violated provisions of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.

The hearing officer was presented with substantial evidence that, while being searched, appellant assaulted a corrections officer. This violent conduct escalated as appellant resisted attempts to restrain him, resulting in a shut down of the medical line, cancellation of a Catholic mass, and a limitation on other movement within the prison. In finding that appellant violated *.002, assaulting any person, and *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility, the hearing officer imposed sanctions of fifteen days' detention (with credit for time served), 365 days' administration segregation, and 365 days' loss of commutation credit on the *.002 charge, and the same sanctions on the *.306 charge; these sanctions were ordered to run consecutively.

Appellant filed an administrative appeal. The hearing officer's findings and disposition were upheld by the agency head. Appellant then appealed to this court.

We discern from appellant's pro se brief that he argues he was denied procedural due process and that the evidence was too insubstantial to support the hearing officer's findings. We find insufficient merit in those arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

20100319

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.