****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subjectto modification andtechnical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or ConnecticutAppellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and inthe Connecticut LawJournal andboundvolumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************MICHAEL GAETANO v. KEVIN MANLEY ET AL. (AC 38636)

Lavine, Prescott and Bear, Js.

Submitted on briefs December 16, 2016—officially released April 11, 2017 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Ozalis, J. [motion to dismiss]; Truglia, J.

[motion to dismiss; judgment].)

Michael Gaetano, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff), filed a brief. GeorgeJepsen, attorney general, andRobertS. Dearington, assistant attorney general, filed a brief for the appellees (named defendant et al.).Opinion
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Michael Gaetano, appeals fromthejudgment ofthe trial court dismissing, for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction, his claims under the federal and state constitutions, directed at the defendants, current and former Department of Correction employees Kevin Manley, Michael Beaudry, and Marco Perez, in their official capacities for monetary damages, forreturnofpersonalproperty, andfordeclaratoryandinjunctive relief, and also dismissing, because ofstatutoryimmunity, hisclaimsagainstthe defendants pursuant to General Statutes § 4-165.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court (1) erred innot certifying aquestionto our Supreme Court; (2) improperly determined that sovereign immunity barred the plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief; (3) improperly determined that the defendants were entitled to statutory immunity under § 4- 165; and (4) improperly considered and ruled on two separate motions to dismiss that challenged the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims.

After careful review of the record, including the court’s two well reasoned memoranda ofdecision, and the parties’ appellate briefs, we conclude that the court properly determined that it lacked subject matterjurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims under the federal and state constitutions, and that the defendants were entitled to statutory immunity under § 4-165. Additionally, the plaintiff’s claims that the court erred in failing to certifyaquestionto ourSupreme Court, andimproperly consideredtwoseparatemotionsto dismissarewithout merit. There is no error.
The judgment is affirmed.