On appeal from a Final Determination of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 29, 2008
Before Judges Gilroy and Chambers.
Appellant Charles Johnson appeals from the final decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), downgrading his *.306 disciplinary infraction for "conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility" to an on-the-spot correction (OTSC), and finding him guilty of committing prohibited act *.005, "threatening another with bodily harm or with any offense against his or her person or his or her property" in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm.
On appeal, appellant argues: 1) the decision of the hearing officer violated due process and should be reversed because it was not based on substantial, credible evidence in the record; and 2) the hearing officer failed to articulate facts establishing his guilt.
Our role in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is limited. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999); Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We will not upset the determination of an administrative agency absent a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; that it lacked fair support in the evidence; or that it violated legislative policies. In re Musick, 143 N.J. 206, 216 (1996); Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). Further, decisions of administrative agencies carry with them a presumption of reasonableness. City of Newark v. Natural Res. Council, 82 N.J. 530, 539, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 983, 101 S.Ct. 400, 66 L.Ed. 2d 245 (1980). We may not vacate an agency's determination because of doubts as to its wisdom or because the record may support more than one result. See generally De Vitis v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. Super. 484, 489-90 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 (1985).
We have considered each of appellant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law. We are satisfied that the arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...