WATFORD v. BALICKI et al, No. 1:2009cv05271 - Document 35 (D.N.J. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk shall mark this matter as CLOSED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 08/24/2012. (tf, n.m. )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KENNETH MARVIN WATFORD, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 09-5271(NLH)(AMD) v. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER LT. ROBERT SCIORE, Defendant. APPEARANCES: KENNETH MARVIN WATFORD NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON P.O. BOX 861 TRENTON, NJ 08625 Appearing pro se BRENDAN J. KAVANAGH KAVANAGH & KAVANAGH, LLC 219 HIGH STREET SUITE A PO BOX 728 MILLVILLE, NJ 08332 On behalf of defendant HILLMAN, District Judge Presently before the Court is the motion of defendant, Robert Sciore, for summary judgment on the claim asserted against him by plaintiff, Kenneth Marvin Watford; and Plaintiff claiming that while he was detained at the Cumberland County Department of Corrections, defendant placed 1 him in pre-hearing detention on June 6, 2009, and he remained in detention without a hearing until June 17, 2009; and Plaintiff claiming the eleven days he spent in detention was a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; and Defendant having asserted in this motion that plaintiff was placed in detention because he threatened another inmate with bodily harm, refused to obey an order of a staff member, and his actions disrupted the security of the facility (Def. Exs. B & C); and Defendant stating that even though the paperwork regarding plaintiff s hearing has been lost, plaintiff did receive a hearing for those charges 1; and Plaintiff having not contested defendant s factual assertions or otherwise opposed defendant s motion other than to simply assert that eleven days in administrative detention without a hearing on his institutional charges violates his constitutional right to due process; and 1 Defendant argues that because plaintiff had been placed in pre-hearing detention for other charges at different times, and he received copies of the paperwork for those charges, he is using the fact that the paperwork for his June 6, 2009 charges has been lost as the sole motivation to bring his current claim against defendant. Because plaintiff has not opposed defendant s motion, plaintiff has not responded to defendant s argument. 2 The Court concluding that there are no material issues of disputed fact and the matter is therefore ripe for adjudication as a matter of law; and While the plaintiff has not opposed defendant s motion and especially in light of plaintiff s pro se status, the Court having reviewed the record independently to determine whether a summary disposition is appropriate; and The Court holding that even if plaintiff did not receive a hearing for eleven days as he claims, and that defendant was responsible for that delay, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this was a due process violation, see Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (holding that a prisoner s disciplinary segregation for thirty days did not deprive him of a cognizable liberty interest where confinement did not impose an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life); Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 653 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that placement into administrative confinement, without more, will rarely implicate a liberty interest); Torres v. Fauver, 292 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2002) (inmate who had been confined to administrative segregation for 120 days had not alleged the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest ); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 3 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979) ( [I]f a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to punishment. ); Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY on this 24th day of August , 2012 ORDERED that defendant s motion for summary judgment [30] is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mark this matter as CLOSED. s/ Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. At Camden, New Jersey 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
