THOMAS JORDAN v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3624-08T33624-08T3

THOMAS JORDAN,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 3, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Sapp-Peterson.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Thomas Jordan, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Susan M. Scott, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant is a prison inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections. On December 26, 2008, while incarcerated at the Garden State Youth Correctional Facility in Yardville, appellant engaged in conduct that led to charges that he violated provisions of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.

The hearing officer was presented with substantial evidence that, while being searched, appellant assaulted a corrections officer. This violent conduct escalated as appellant resisted attempts to restrain him, resulting in a shut down of the medical line, cancellation of a Catholic mass, and a limitation on other movement within the prison. In finding that appellant violated *.002, assaulting any person, and *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility, the hearing officer imposed sanctions of fifteen days' detention (with credit for time served), 365 days' administration segregation, and 365 days' loss of commutation credit on the *.002 charge, and the same sanctions on the *.306 charge; these sanctions were ordered to run consecutively.

Appellant filed an administrative appeal. The hearing officer's findings and disposition were upheld by the agency head. Appellant then appealed to this court.

 
We discern from appellant's pro se brief that he argues he was denied procedural due process and that the evidence was too insubstantial to support the hearing officer's findings. We find insufficient merit in those arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-3624-08T3

March 19, 2010