DENNIS GARRETSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Annotate this CaseNOT 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.