I/M/O AL-TARIQ JOHNSON COUNTY JAIL, COUNTY OF BURLINGTON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5082-07T15082-07T1

I/M/O AL-TARIQ JOHNSON,

COUNTY JAIL, COUNTY OF

BURLINGTON.

____________________________________

 

Submitted March 2, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Wefing and Grall.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision

of the Department of Personnel.

Mark W. Catanzaro, attorney for appellant Al-Tariq Johnson.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent Department of Personnel

(Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney

General, of counsel; Andrea R. Grundfest,

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Peter H. Nelson, County Solicitor, attorney for respondent Burlington County joins in the brief of respondent Department of Personnel.

PER CURIAM

Al-Tariq Johnson, formerly employed by Burlington County as a corrections officer, was removed from his position by the Jail Administrator after testing positive for marijuana. The Merit System Board (Board) denied his request for a hearing to challenge his removal on the ground that the request was not timely filed. Johnson appeals from that final agency decision. R. 2:2-3(a)(2).

 
Johnson acknowledges that the Board's jurisdiction is dependent, among other things, upon the filing of an administrative appeal within twenty days of the employee's receipt of a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action. See N.J.S.A. 11A:2-15; N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.8; Borough of Park Ridge v. Salimone, 21 N.J. 28, 46 (1956); Mesghali v. Bayside State Prison, 334 N.J. Super. 617, 620-21 (App. Div. 2000), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 630 (2001). Nonetheless, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish the date upon which he received the notice. His claim is defeated by evidence of his signature on a receipt acknowledging his acceptance of certified mail transmitting the Notice of Final Disciplinary Action. That signed receipt is included in the record on appeal by force of an order of this court granting the Board's motion to supplement the record. As Johnson's argument rests on a factual claim that is refuted by the record as supplemented, it lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-5082-07T1

March 18, 2010