his determination and found that Fredric “was not credible.” CP at 1286 (FF 14). In fact, over the course of the hearing, the hearing officer heard 10 witnesses whose testimony resulted in 12 volumes and over 2,300 pages of transcripts. A close perusal of the record and findings shows that there was supporting evidence and independent findings regarding each count against Fredric. Fredric’s general and unsupported claim that the hearing officer simply relied on the findings of the underlying courts fails. VII. Fredric’s Right to Notice of the Charges Was Not Violated, and His Other Arguments Are Meritless ¶67 Fredric argues that new charges were added during the course of the disciplinary hearing in violation of In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct. 1222, 20 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1968) (<HOLDING>). But the hearing officer did not add new
recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process holding that a conflict of interest on the part of the prosecution violates the due process clause of the virginia constitution holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause holding an inmate has a due process right to 1 advance written notice of the disciplinary charges 2an opportunity to call witness and present evidence and 3 a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights