and religious services In his Affidavit, Plaintiff claims that his college programming was “irreparably disrupted, and, plaintiff did not graduate because he spent almost one year locked down without any access to programming whatsoever.” Plaintiffs Affidavit, ¶ 4; Plaintiffs Memorandum, ¶ 25. Although N.Y.Correct.Law § 136 (McKinney 1987 & Supp. 1998) requires that each inmate be provided a program of education, as the court noted in Giano v. Cuomo, 1998 WL 760262, *3-4 (N.D.N.Y.1998), the statute does not specify any detailed educational requirements and do nd that prisoners have, no protected liberty -interests in prison vocational, rehabilitation and educational programs based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Lee v. Governor of State of New York, 87 F.3d
holding that state actions which carry adverse consequences for prison inmates do not automatically activate federal due process considerations and dismissing plaintiffs claim that his prison classification constituted a due process violation because it disqualified him from institutional rehabilitation programs holding that where challenged decision is based on experience of prison administrators and where the states interest implicates the safety of other inmates and prison personnel due process is satisfied by informal nonadversary procedures holding there is no constitutional entitlement to prison rehabilitative programs or to particular custody classifications under the due process clause holding that prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the constitution holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record