Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1789-11T3
02-22-2013
IN THE MATTER OF ROOSEVELT WILSON, NORTHERN STATE PRISON, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Theodore Campbell argued the cause for appellant Roosevelt Wilson. Christopher J. Hamner, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Civil Service Commission (Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Hamner, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Axelrad and Nugent.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2011-3257.
Theodore Campbell argued the cause for appellant Roosevelt Wilson.
Christopher J. Hamner, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Civil Service Commission (Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Hamner, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Former Senior Corrections Officer Roosevelt Wilson appeals from the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) final administrative decision upholding his removal from office by the Department of Corrections (DOC). The DOC had filed disciplinary charges against Wilson after he left his post at a hospital intensive care unit. He and another corrections officer had been assigned to guard a hospitalized prisoner, who was serving a forty-year prison term for aggravated manslaughter. During Wilson's shift, the prisoner was admitted to the neurosurgery intensive care unit after undergoing brain surgery. Wilson handcuffed the prisoner's ankle to the bed and left the prisoner unattended. As a result, nurses could not transport the prisoner for diagnostic testing, so they notified the hospital police. Following the ensuing investigation, the DOC lodged the charges that ultimately resulted in Wilson's removal from office.
Wilson raises the following points for our consideration:
POINT I - THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT RECORD LACK[S] MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND [THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S] DECISION WAS BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.
POINT II - THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT BASED ITS CONCLUSION ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND THUS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR.
POINT III - THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY WAS DEFICIENT AND INEFFECTIVE AND CAPABLE OF PRODUCING AN UNJUST RESULT.
Having examined the record in light of Wilson's arguments, we conclude the CSC's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). Moreover, Wilson's remaining arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION