Marvin T. Adger VS Venetia Michaels, Warden, David Wade Correctional Center and James Leblanc, Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 2101 MARVIN T ADGER 1 1f j C 1 VERSUS VENETIA T MICHAEL WARDEN DAVID WADE CORRECTIONAL CENTER AND AMES M LEBLANC SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND I JI1 CORRECTIONS STATE OF LOUISIANA r On Appeal from the 19th udicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 567 Section 27 410 Honorable Todd W Hernandez Judge Presiding Marvin T Adger Homer LA Appellant plaintiff In Proper Person Susan Wall GrifFn Attorney for Baton Rouge LA Appellee Defendant ames M LeBlanc Secretary Department of Pubiic Safety and Corrections BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD 7J JUN 0 4 2010 udgment rendered PARRO 7 Marvin T Adger an inmate appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and dismissing his petition for judicial review with prejudice On appeal the inmate sought reversal of the judgment based on the district court alleged error in failing to enforce s contract aagreemenY regarding the forfeiture of good time earned After a thorough review of the record and relevant law and jurisprudence we find that the district s court reasons for judgment as set forth in the commissioner recommendation s adequately explain the decision As the issue involves no more than an application of settled well rules to a recurring fact situation we affirm the judgment in accordance with URCA Rule A 16 24 5 6 and 8 All costs of this appeal are assessed against the inmate appellant AFFIRMED The inmate claim was for breach of contract based on an alleged violation of the Good Time Rate s Option and Approval Form that the inmate signed on October 15 1997 See LSA 15 Bancroft v Louisiana Deot of Corrections 93 La App lst Cir S 4 R 571 B 1135 94 8 4 635 So 738 741 2d 3 Although the inmate ssuit was brought in forma pauperis the costs of an unsuccessfui appeal may be assessed against him See Hull v Stalder 00 La App lst Cir 2 808 So 8Z9 833 n 2730 02 15 2d 3 see also LSA art 5188 P C 2
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.
