Kerry Myers VS Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL ยท FIRST CIRCUfT NO. 2013 CA 2215 KERRY MYERS VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS Judgment rendered June 6, 2014. Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Trial Court No. C602263 Honorable Wiliiam Morvant, Judge KERRY MYERS PRO SE ANGOLA, LA PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TERRI L. CANNON ATTORNEY FOR ANGOLA, LA DEFENDANT-APPELLEE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORREcnONS BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, JJ. PETTIGREW, J. This is an appeal by inmate, Kerry Myers, of a trial court judgment that adopted the Commissioner's recommendation and denied the inmate's petition for judicial review. After a thorough review of the record and the inmate's arguments reiterated on appeal, we find no error below, and affirm the trial court's judgment. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Myers instituted this administrative procedure, complaining that his incentive pay wages were improperly reduced when he was transferred from one inmate work program job to another, and then back to his original position. He claimed that the regulation in effect at the time of his job transfer prohibited .the department from reducing his wages when his job was changed. Myers was denied relief at both the first and second steps of the administrative remedy procedure. He then requested judicial review. Oral arguments were heard at hearings on October 9, 2012, and on April 18, 2013, following which the Commissioner issued a detailed report on September 12, 2013, and recommended that Myers' relief be denied and that the agency decision be affirmed. Myers traversed the Commissioner's report. After a de novo review, the trial court adopted the reasons given in the Commissioner's report, affirmed the agency's decision, and dismissed Myers' action with prejudice at hls cost, by judgment dated October 10, 2013. Myers appealed. APP.EAL On appeal, Myers reiterates the same argument~ regarding the alleged impropriety of the department's reducing his incenti~ p~w_ w.hen. his job was changed. e Additionally, he claims that the decision rendered by the Commissioner in this case failed to address the issues raised by him and, instead, denied the relief sought based on a prior decision by another Commissioner on November 8, 2011, concerning another inmate who raised similar issues. in an entirely different matter, Myers alleges the Commissioner in this case simply " cut and pasted" the reasons given by the other Commissioner in the previous case, and did not even consider the evidence or arguments presented by him. 2 i I Moreover, he complains that the trial court in this matter did not, as stated, conduct a de novo review, but, instead, merely affirmed wit~ out reviewing the record. After this court's thorough review of the record before us, il)cluding the Cornmissioner's report in this matter, as well as the alleged " cut and pasted~' report in the separate matter, we find no merit in Myers' egregious allegations. Our review reveals a Commissioner's! report that .is very detailed in the facts : . t~~ departmE:ntal presented, the applicable law ( i.e., including regulation applicable based on the particular dates relevant to the issu~s presented), and the analysis applied, in reaching what we find to be a correct conclusion. Commissioner's report and recommendation In While. we agree that the prior another .inmate's matter is similar, those similarities are grounded in the fact that the 1same arguments regarding the applications of the same departmental regulations concer~rng incentive pay were involved. However, it is abundantly clear by a full reading of bot~ reports that each report was based on the particular facts presented in each matter and those facts and circumstances. acorrect application of the law applicable to Therefore, ~ e expressly reject Myers' allegations and arguments in this regard. As to the merits of Myers' grievance, and correctly addresses all the issues we find the Commissioner's report thoroughly rai~ ed and supports the conclusion that his grievance has no merit There is nothing in ~ he record to support the baseless claim that the trial court did not, as stated, conduct a df novo review of the record prior to adopting the Commissioner's report as its reasons for affirming the decision of the agency. CONCLUSION Accordingly, as did the trial court, we ~rso adopt the Commissioner's well reasoned and thorough report, as our reasons, for affi~ ming the agency's decision and for affirming the trial court's judgment, denying relief, ahd dismissing Myers' action with prejudice. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Kerry Myers. This memorandum opinion is issued ini compliance with URCA Rule 2-16.1.B. AFFIRMED.
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.
