JAVIER GARCIA v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1411-05T21411-05T3

JAVIER GARCIA,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________________

 

Submitted June 13, 2006 - Decided June 30, 2006

Before Judges Conley and Cuff.

On appeal from the Department of Corrections.

Javier Garcia, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Walter C. Kowalski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, an inmate currently incarcerated at Southern State Correctional Facility, appeals a final determination by the Department of Corrections upholding disciplinary sanctions imposed for a violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a) (*.004, fighting with another person). On appeal, he contends:

POINT I: THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, AND RESULTS IN VIOLATIONS OF APPELLANT'S SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV [AND N.J.] CONST. ART. I.

POINT II: THE APPELLANT HAS A LIBERTY INTEREST IN MAINTINAING ANY REDUCE[D] CUSTODY STATUS (60 DAY LOSS COMMUTATION TIME) AND THE ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATED APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, N.J. CONST. ART. I AND FAIRNESS AND RIGHTNESS DOCTRINE.

POINT III: THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY [NOT BEING] PROVID[ED] AN IMPARTIAL AND FAIR HEARING PROCEDURE THROUGHOUT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS, UNDER THE U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV.

POINT IV: THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS SAFEGUARDS IN THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AS REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT [IN] WOLF VS. McDONNELL.

POINT V: THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FAILED TO ESTABLISH AND FOLLOW ITS OWN POLICIES TO ASSURE THAT INMATES' DISICPLINE AND CONTROL ARE CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.

 
We have considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable law. We are convinced they are of insufficient merit to warrant further opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D),(E).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-1411-05T23

June 30, 2006