WILLIAM MCCULLOUGH, JR. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-6169-04T26169-04T2

WILLIAM MCCULLOUGH, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Respondent.

______________________________________

 

Submitted June 6, 2 006 Decided June 22, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and S.L. Reisner.

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

William McCullough, Jr., 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

William McCullough, Jr., a prison inmate, appeals from a final disciplinary determination of the Department of Corrections. We affirm.

McCullough, an inmate at South Woods State Prison, was charged with *005, threatening another with harm. The charge stemmed from an incident in which a corrections officer observed McCullough threatening another inmate that "I am going to kick your ass if you say anything else to my cousin Inmate Baez." At his hearing, McCullough declined the opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination of the witnesses against him. He was found guilty of the offense, based on the hearing officer's conclusion that the statements of the corrections officer who heard McCullough make the threat and the inmate who was threatened, were more credible than the statements offered by McCullough and his witnesses. McCullough received 15 days detention, 180 days loss of commutation credits and 180 days of administrative segregation.

On this appeal he raises the following contention:

POINT I: THE FINAL AGENCY DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE McCULLOUGH'S DISCIPLINARY HEARING DID NOT COMPORT WITH ALL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE [FINDING] OF GUILT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that these contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We find no procedural deficiencies in the disciplinary hearing, and the agency's decision is supported by substantial credible evidence. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A); Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6169-04T2

June 22, 2006