On appeal from a Final Decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted: October 27, 2010
Before Judges Axelrad and R. B. Coleman.
Anthony Boone, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, appeals from a final determination of the Department of Corrections (DOC) regarding the prison visitation schedule for his wing. He argues the designated schedule is illegal; violates due process and equal protection; violates the rules, regulations, policies and procedures of the DOC; and creates a hardship on the prisoners housed in his wing.*fn1 More particularly, appellant objects to the fact that prisoners in Wings 1 through 4 have designated mornings or afternoons on weekends for visitation,*fn2 while prisoners housed in Wings 5 and 7 apparently are exempt from the restrictions and have the enjoyment of contact visits on Saturday morning or afternoon and Sunday morning or afternoon. We affirm.
On January 1, 2009, appellant filed two Inmate Remedy Forms (IRF), one complaining about the inmate visitation schedule and the other contending appellant was being made to choose between going to recreation or going to eat. On January 14, 2009, DOC staff provided a combined response to both grievances, which was that "[inmate] states that he has no problems at this time and that he gets plenty of recreation time. Visit regulations have been made and put into place for the orderly running of the institution." Appellant administratively appealed the response, and on January 26, 2009, the final agency decision noted that its first response addressed appellant's concerns. This appeal ensued.
The focus of this appeal is on the visitation issue and it thus appears appellant is abandoning his recreation grievance. Appellant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion other than the following brief comments. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We will not disturb the determination of an administrative agency absent a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, that it lacked sufficient credible evidence in the record, 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). We are satisfied visitation matters are within the administrative prerogative of the institution and discern no basis to interfere in this case. See N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.11(a) (providing the Administrator the authority to "establish a visiting schedule consistent with the orderly and efficient operation of the correctional facility"). Appellant has not demonstrated that his procedural or constitutional rights have been violated or that he suffers a hardship by the visitation schedule imposed by the DOC. Nor has appellant stated or provided any documentation that he tried to make other visitation arrangements due to a hardship and was rebuffed by the administrator. See N.J.A.C. 10A:18-6.11(b) (stating if "the restriction of visiting on scheduled visit days is a hardship to a visitor, arrangements for suitable hours on other days may be made").