ANTHONY MONTGOMERY v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2657-04T22657-04T2

ANTHONY MONTGOMERY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________________

 

Submitted: November 29, 2005 - Decided:

Before Judges Kestin and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Department of Corrections.

Anthony Montgomery, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly A. Sked, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Anthony Montgomery, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, appeals from a disciplinary determination upholding violations of two prohibited acts: refusing to submit to a search, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a) *.708; and possessing or introducing prohibited substances, as specifically proscribed in N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a) *.203. For each infraction, the hearing officer recommended that the inmate serve fifteen days of detention, 180 days' loss of commutation credits, and 180 days of administrative segregation. Additionally, on the *.203 offense, the hearing officer found permanent loss of contact visits and 365 days of urine monitoring to be appropriate sanctions. The findings and sanctions were upheld in an internal appeal.

The charges arose from an incident in the visit hall area of the prison. A corrections officer witnessed conduct on the inmate's part suggesting to him that the inmate possessed an illicit substance or substances. On the way to the area where a search was to be conducted, that officer and another saw the inmate discard a balloon containing a substance later confirmed to be marijuana.

The evidentiary hearing on the charges involved the reports and direct testimony of the two corrections officers, their responses to questions on cross-examination, and the introduction of a videotape. The inmate did not make a statement, but argument was received on his behalf.

The hearing officer made findings based upon the evidence before him and his evaluations of witness credibility. Those findings, being grounded on substantial credible evidence, are binding on appeal. See Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965). We reject, as unsupported by the record, the sole argument presented in this appeal that "the hearing officer's decision finding appellant guilty of violating prison rules was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, contrary to due process of law." This argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E).

 
Accordingly, we affirm.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2657-04T2

December 6, 2005