NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

STUMBO, Judge.

The appellant, Nicholas Jacobsen, appeals an order of the Oldham Circuit Court dismissing his claim for relief from a prison disciplinary action. We affirm.

Jacobsen received a total of 225 days of disciplinary segregation and lost 420 days of good time credit because he failed a drug test while incarcerated at the Kentucky State Reformatory. Correctional Officer Michael Dominy and Correctional Sergeant Thomas Noonan obtained a urine sample that ultimately tested positive for oxycodone, oxymorphone, and marijuana. When the lab reported the failed test, three disciplinary report forms were completed, Jacobsen was notified in writing of the allegations, and a hearing was conducted. Jacobsen was ultimately found guilty based on findings that Jacobsen admitted to signing the paperwork, which indicated the sample was his and was sealed in his presence, and that all "policies and procedures were followed during testing." The adjustment committee report indicated that Officer Dominy and Sergeant Noonan had collected a urine sample, that Pharmatech Inc. reported that the test was positive, and that the prison nurse reported that Jacobsen was not taking any medicines that would have resulted in a failed test. Jacobsen appealed the decision to the Warden, arguing that the sample had been sent to a different lab than originally indicated on the form, that he did not witness them sealing the sample, and that the form had not been signed by Officer Dominy. The warden determined that the prison had changed lab facilities, but that the chain was nonetheless intact.

Jacobsen then filed a petition for declaration of rights to the circuit court who dismissed his action for failure to state a claim. The circuit court specifically stated:

On appeal, Jacobsen contends that the prison's policies and procedures were not followed and that, as a result, the disciplinary action was based on insufficient evidence. We disagree.

When examining the proceedings, we must do so in light of the fact that "[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not part of the criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply." Webb v. Sharp, 223 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Ky. 2007) (quoting Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556, 94 S.Ct. at 2975). When determining if there is sufficient evidence, we must only determine if there is "any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Walpole, 472 U.S. at 455-56, 105 S.Ct at 2774 (emphasis added). If "some evidence" exists, the decision must be affirmed. Smith, 939 S.W.2d at 358. When determining if "some evidence" exists, we are not required to examine the entire record, to conduct an independent assessment of the witness's credibility, or to weigh the evidence. Webb, 223 S.W.3d at 118.

Also, Jacobsen's brief fails to comply with Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.12 in a number of ways and the most critical failures are his lack of citations to the record and his failure to indicate how his arguments were preserved for review. "Our options when an appellate advocate fails to abide by the rules are: (1) to ignore the deficiency and proceed with the review; (2) to strike the brief or its offending portions, CR 76.12(8)(a); or (3) to review the issues raised in the brief for manifest injustice only, Elwell v. Stone, 799 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Ky. App. 1990)." Hallis v. Hallis, 328 S.W.3d 694, 696 (Ky. App. 2010). Jacobsen's pro se status does not exempt him from making a good faith effort to comply with the rules. Id. at 698. Thus, as a result of the brief's shortcomings, we will review his claim for manifest injustice.

The circuit court specifically found that the due process requirements were met in this case and that a chain of custody was established. Indeed, the record contains a donor form signed by Jacobsen, a chain of custody form completed and signed during each stage of the testing procedure, and a form signed by the prison nurse indicating that Jacobsen was not taking any medications that would cause him to fail the test. Thus, we are unable to say that any of the allegations raise by Jacobsen resulted in manifest injustice. Furthermore, the discipline even survives scrutiny under the "some evidence" evidence standard because there is sufficiently reliable evidence in the record to support the disciplinary action and adequate due process was afforded. Thus, the circuit court order dismissing Jacobsen's petition is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.