Penero v. Superintendent, N. Cent. Corr. Inst.

The plaintiff, an inmate at the North Central Correctional Institution at Gardner, appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint challenging a disciplinary finding. A judge of the Superior Court allowed the defendants' cross motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. We conclude, for substantially the reasons set forth by the motion judge, that the plaintiff did not state a cause of action related to his claims that his due process rights were violated. Compare Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995). We also conclude that the guilty finding was supported by substantial evidence. See Puleio v. Commissioner of Correction, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 302, 305 (2001). With regard to Penero's claim—made for the first time on appeal—that he was deprived of his prison job, we generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Commissioner of Correction v. McCabe, 410 Mass. 847, 850 n. 7 (1991).

Judgment affirmed.
-------- Notes:

We use the spelling of the plaintiff's name as it appears in the complaint.