Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edison v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


June 13, 2008

RODNEY EDISON, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted April 23, 2008

Before Judges Wefing and Parker.

Rodney Edison is an inmate in the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. He appeals from a Final Decision of the Department finding him guilty of a disciplinary infraction, violating *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of a correctional facility. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

The charge against Edison rested upon an incident which occurred on April 7, 2007, when Edison was leaving his cell for the regularly scheduled evening distribution of medication. A corrections officer saw Edison push an emergency call button. That button triggered a silent alarm to the command center. In response to that signal, an emergency code was called, and the unit was shut down while supervisory and emergency personnel responded.

Edison denied he pushed the button. He contended another inmate pushed the button but that the corrections officer charged him with the offense in retaliation for his having earlier presented a charge against her. Another inmate supported Edison's position that Edison had not pushed the button.

The hearing officer heard the conflicting versions of what occurred and determined that Edison had, indeed, committed this infraction. Edison received all the procedural protection to which he was entitled under Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975). He was given the opportunity to confront the corrections officer who presented the charge against him, but he did not question her about the possibility of a mistaken identification.

We cannot fairly characterize the Final Decision as either arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. We thus affirm it. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

20080613

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.