OTTO KRUPP 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3048-10T4

OTTO KRUPP,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________________

December 29, 2011

Submitted December 12, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Skillman.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Otto Krupp, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christine H. Kim, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Otto Krupp appeals from a final decision of the Department of Corrections finding that he committed prohibited act *.204 use of any prohibited substances such as drugs, intoxicants or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the inmate by the medical or dental staff, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a), and imposing 15 days' detention, 90 days' administrative segregation, 90 days' loss of commutation credits, 120 days' urine monitoring, and permanent loss of contact visits, as sanctions for this disciplinary infraction. The Department's decision was based on a urine specimen provided by appellant which tested positive for "THC 50."

Appellant argues that the Department failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the conduct of prison disciplinary actions set forth in Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 525-33 (1975) and N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.1 to -9.28. We are satisfied that the Department substantially complied with these procedural requirements. Appellant's arguments regarding the Department's alleged violations of these requirements are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Appellant does not dispute the finding that his urine sample tested positive for "THC 50." In any event, the continuity of evidence form and the October 5, 2010 laboratory report issued by the Department of Health and Senior Services provided the required "substantial evidence" of appellant's commission of the disciplinary infraction. See Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 222 (1995).

Moreover, the sanctions imposed upon appellant for this infraction were consistent with the Administrative Code and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.