KEITH E. JOHNSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2698-06T12698-06T1

KEITH E. JOHNSON,

Appellant,

vs.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: November 8, 2007 - Decided:

Before Judges Cuff and Lisa.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.

Keith E. Johnson, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Sean M. Gorman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This is a prison disciplinary appeal. Inmate Keith E. Johnson appeals from a final agency decision of respondent New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) imposing disciplinary sanctions for committing prohibited act .210, possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by an inmate or not issued to him through regular correction facility channels in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). The contraband possessed by the inmate was pornography, sunglasses, photocopies of sports gambling information, a highlighter and typewriter ribbons. For this infraction, the inmate received a sanction of seven days detention and thirty days loss of commutation time.

On appeal, appellant argues that the correctional facility did not follow the prescribed rules for delivery of certain forms to him. Appellant states that he did not receive a confiscation form. He also asserts that the charge is misdated and that the correctional officers did not follow the disciplinary charge process. He also argues that the hearing officer violated appellant's "Substantive Due Process Rights, To a fair hearing."

Our review of the record demonstrates to us that the adjudication is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). In fact, appellant admits possession of the items. He seems to contest only the number of items in his possession. We also discern no departure from the process that is his due. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194-95 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 215 (1995); Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 529 (1975); N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.1 to -9.28.

The adjudication of guilt and the sanction imposed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2698-06T1

November 28, 2007