Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
Couch v. Jabe Virginia prison officials failed to show how allowing a Sunni Muslim inmate to wear a one-eighth-inch beard would implicate prison health or security concerns, and the 4th Circuit vacates summary judgment for defendant officials in the inmate’s suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
McDonald v. North Carolina Department of Correction Although G.S. § 12-3(12) defines “imprisonment for one month” to mean imprisonment for 30 days, G.S. § 12-3(3) defines “month” as a calendar month unless otherwise expressed. Where plaintiffs’ sentences are for more than one month, they are not entitled to have each month of their sentences construed as 30 days.
McDonald v. North Carolina Department of Correction Although G.S. § 12-3(12) defines “imprisonment for one month” to mean imprisonment for 30 days, G.S. § 12-3(3) defines “month” as a calendar month unless otherwise expressed. Where plaintiffs’ sentences are for more than one month, they are not entitled to have each month of their sentences construed as 30 days.
Conner v. North Carolina Council of State Even though the Council of State is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, since the Department of Correction is exempt from the APA, when the Council of State reviews the DOC’s lethal injection protocol, the APA does not apply.
We modify and affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the petition.
Petitioners are DOC inmates who have been sentenced to death by lethal injection.
Bumgarner v. NCDOC The court certifies a class of disabled prisoners who allege that (1) they serve longer prison sentences because they are excluded from participation in sentence reduction credit programs because of their disabilities and (2) the programs in which they are allowed to participate award gain time at a lower rate than other programs.
Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class is granted.
Sartori v. North Carolina Department of Correction Plaintiff’s claims - that charges by defendant to inmates for disciplinary infractions and medical treatment co-payments fail to comply with G.S. § 12-3.1 - have been ruled upon in prior unpublished decisions (Griffith v. N.C. Department of Correction, 710 S.E.2d 707 (2011) (medical co-payments) and Griffith v. N.C. Department of Correction, 709 S.E.2d 412 (2011) (disciplinary infractions fee)). We adopt the reasoning of these prior decisions.
Stevenson v. N.C. Department of Correction Plaintiff alleged that he was mistakenly accused of violating a prison rule and that his punishment was receiving only “Nutra-loaf” — which he could not eat – as food for three days. Plaintiff made no argument that the defendant’s actions exceeded the broad grant of legislative authority allowing defendant to govern prison discipline; therefore, plaintiff has not alleged any judicial matters.
Griffith v. North Carolina Department of Correction. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0336, 31 pp.) (Douglas McCullough, J.) Appealed from Anson County Superior Court. (W. Erwin Spainhour, J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: With regard to persons in its custody, the Department of Correction is exempt from the general rule [...]
Newcomb v. County of Carteret. Despite the fact that Marshallberg Harbor is man-made, since the harbor is navigable, the owners of the land along the harbor have riparian rights. However, those lands are subject to an easement granted to the defendant-county when the harbor was created. We affirm the trial court's summary judgment rulings as to riparian rights and the county's easement. We dismiss the plaintiffs' appeal of the trial court's decision as to the prescriptive easement issue.
