DENNIS GARRETSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2285-04T52285-04T5

DENNIS GARRETSON,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 18, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and Collester

On appeal from the New Jersey Department

of Corrections.

Dennis Garretson, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly A. Sked,

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Garretson, a state prison inmate, was convicted in an administrative proceeding of violating a prison regulation, *.258, because of his alleged refusal to submit to testing for prohibited substances. On appeal, he offers the following contentions:

POINT ONE

THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND FAIRNESS WAS VIOLATED WHEN PRISON OFFICIALS DID NOT AFFORD HIM A PHYSICAL REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER TO TEST FOR PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

POINT TWO

THE HEARING OFFICER RENDERED AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISION THAT VIOLATED THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND FAIRNESS

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that Garretson's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and that the decision of the "administrative agency is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole." R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). Nonetheless, we add the following comments.

Garretson concedes that at approximately 3:15 p.m., on November 9, 2004, he, and all the other inmates on his wing, were ordered to provide a urine sample within two hours. Garretson claims in his brief that after going to the mess hall with permission at around 4:25 p.m., he returned to his cell at 5:15 p.m. But he did not testify at the administrative hearing, and the evidence presented there showed that he did not return until after 5:15 p.m. Consequently, we perceive no basis for overturning the administrative decision.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2285-04T5

November 3, 2005

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.