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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 7, 2018
2

A-5591-15T1

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 
3

A-5591-15T1

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 prisoners

1

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).
4

A-5591-15T1

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). 
5

A-5591-15T1

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.