ALEXANDER THOMAS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4704-04T54704-04T5
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
Appellant,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________________
Submitted: March 20, 2006 - Decided April 3, 2006
Before Judges Cuff and Parrillo.
On appeal from a Final Decision of the Department of Corrections.
Alexander Thomas, appellant pro se.
Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This is a prison disciplinary appeal. Inmate Alexander Thomas appeals from a finding that he committed prohibited act .256, refusing to obey an order of any staff member in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1. The specific order was to cut his fingernails. The hearing officer recommended sanctions of fifteen days detention, ninety days of administrative segregation (sixty days suspended), and referral to the Administrator for sixty days loss of commutation time. The inmate appealed and the Administrator upheld the guilty finding but modified the sanctions to seven days detention, thirty days loss of commutation time and ninety days of administrative segregation with sixty days suspended.
On appeal, the inmate contends that the proceedings violated his due process rights. He also argues that the finding of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence.
We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the arguments presented by the inmate. We are satisfied that Thomas received all of the process he was due, McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995); Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975), and that the finding of guilt of refusal to cut his fingernails is well-supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. The order is, therefore, affirmed. R. 2:11-3(e)(2)(D)(E).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-4704-04T5
April 3, 2006
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.