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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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, 20182 A

- 5591

- 15T1

Michael Stanton, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, challenges the

June 16, 2016 fi nal 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, whi le incarcerated at Bayside State Prison, Stanton was moved to a
temporary closed custody unit. He was subsequently transferred from Bayside

to his current facility. I n February 2016, w hen his personal property was

delivered
, he c omp lai n ed his television and radio were missing and that they had

been stolen by other inmates at Bayside. O n 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 in vestigate recommended Stanton's claim be

denied. He f

o u nd that th ere was no negligence on the part of Bayside, Stanton

fail ed to exercise care to prevent t he property' s loss, Stanton was not authorized3 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 prisoner s 1

had fought over whether the te levi s ion 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 . Th e inve stigat or concluded that he could not determine

whether the radio had also been sold, lost, or previously destroyed.

The controlling provision of the N ew Jersey Administrative Code sta tes:

(a) The following factors shall be considered before recommendin g 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 serg eant'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 inma te 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 t he 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 arbitr ary, 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

rep ort ing 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.

T he 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. T he

extent of care exercised by Stan ton over his property cannot be determined from

this record

. H is 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.