NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5591-15T1
MICHAEL STANTON,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Submitted October 3, 2018 – Decided November 7, 2018
Before Judges Alvarez and Mawla.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Michael Stanton, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Suzanne M. Davies, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Michael Stanton, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, challenges the
June 16, 2016 final decision by the Department of Corrections (DOC) business
manager denying his claim for the loss of a television and radio, which loss he
alleges occurred when he was moved from one facility to another. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm. We also deny Stanton's application, made after
the filing of the appeal, to include in the record on appeal a receipt, dated June
24, 2013, for the purchase of the television.
Although not entirely clear from the record, it appears that on January 31,
2016, while incarcerated at Bayside State Prison, Stanton was moved to a
temporary closed custody unit. He was subsequently transferred from Bayside
to his current facility. In February 2016, when his personal property was
delivered, he complained his television and radio were missing and that they had
been stolen by other inmates at Bayside. On March 31, 2016, Stanton filed a
claim for lost, damaged, or destroyed property with the DOC administration
services. See N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2.
The officer assigned to investigate recommended Stanton's claim be
denied. He found that there was no negligence on the part of Bayside, Stanton
failed to exercise care to prevent the property's loss, Stanton was not authorized
A-5591-15T1
2
to possess the property, he failed to support his claim with appropriate
documentation, and he did not submit the claim in a timely manner.
The investigative report further states that the claim was dated March 31,
2016, for an incident Stanton asserted occurred January 31, 2016. It was not
filed with the prison authorities until April 16, 2016. When the investigator
interviewed a courtline sergeant, he learned that Stanton and other prisoners1
had fought over whether the television had been sold or loaned by Stanton to the
other inmates. The television was deemed contraband and taken into custody.
No receipt was provided for the radio, nor was it on the property inventory
sheet when Stanton was sent to prehearing detention, presumably as a result of
the confrontation. The investigator concluded that he could not determine
whether the radio had also been sold, lost, or previously destroyed.
The controlling provision of the New Jersey Administrative Code states:
(a) The following factors shall be considered before
recommending approval or disapproval of claims [for
lost property]:
1
Information or details about the physical confrontation are limited by the
record. In the investigator's report, there is only brief mention of the courtline
sergeant's perspective. However, we recently noted that there is a record of
sanction against defendant resulting from violation of act *.044 , fighting with
another person. Stanton v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., Nos. A-2912-15, A-1126-16,
A-3618-16 (App. Div. Sept. 21, 2018) (slip op. at 8).
A-5591-15T1
3
1. Whether the investigation revealed any neglect
by the correctional facility;
2. Whether care was exercised by facility staff
preventing property loss, damage or destruction;
3. Whether the inmate exercised care in preventing
property loss, damage or destruction;
4. Whether it has been proven that the inmate was
authorized to have and did, in fact, possess the item(s)
named in the claim;
5. Whether sufficient information has been supplied
by the inmate, including proper receipts, witnesses and
investigative reports;
6. Whether the inmate submitted the claim in a
timely manner;
....
8. Whether the personal property is considered
contraband; and
9. Whether other reviewers recommended denial of
the claim and the reasons therefor.
[N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2.]
Our role in reviewing agency action is limited. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644,
656 (1999). We do not disturb administrative agency determinations unless we
conclude such action is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Henry v. Rahway
State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).
A-5591-15T1
4
In this case, the record is at best confused. It does not establish Stanton's
ownership of the items in dispute, include any explanation for the delay in
reporting the loss, or ultimately, demonstrate negligence on the part of the
facility. If the television was an item in dispute between Stanton and other
inmates, and taken by facility staff as contraband, that is agency action falling
outside the scope of the regulation, and is reasonable. The status of the radio is
unclear.
The investigation into Stanton's late claim found no neglect on the part of
the institution. Nothing in the record causes us to question the finding. The
extent of care exercised by Stanton over his property cannot be determined from
this record. His claim was not timely. Since the DOC's action in adopting the
investigator's recommendation was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, it
will not be disturbed. See In re Taylor, 158 N.J. at 657.
Affirmed.
A-5591-15T1
5