ALEX RODRIGUEZ v. NEW JERSEY 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-6433-04T26433-04T2
ALEX RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________________________________
Submitted June 1, 2006 - Decided June 30, 2006
Before Judges Conley and Weissbard.
On appeal from a Final Decision of the
New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Alex Rodriguez, appellant pro se.
Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly A.
Sked, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Alex Rodriguez, a State Prison inmate, appeals from a final agency action of the Department of Corrections (DOC) affirming a hearing officer's determination that he committed two disciplinary infractions, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1 *.002 (assault) and *.101 (escape). On the assault charge, sanctions of fifteen days detention, 180 days administrative segregation and 180 days loss of commutation time was imposed; on the escape charge, the sanctions were the same.
On appeal Rodriguez argues:
POINT I
IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS MATTER, THE FINAL DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE VACATED INASMUCH AS APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR DISCIPLINARY HEARING PREJUDICIAL ENOUGH TO WARRANT REVERSAL, AND VIOLATIVE OF APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION AND THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
Having carefully reviewed this argument in light of the record and applicable law, we find it without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The findings are supported by substantial evidence, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a), and are neither arbitrary nor capricious. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980); see also R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-6433-04T2
June 30, 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.