Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2615-14T2
09-12-2016
TERRANCE INGRAHAM, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Terrance Ingraham, appellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Alvarez and Simonelli. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Terrance Ingraham, appellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Terrance Ingraham is a resident of South Woods State Prison serving a forty-five-year term of imprisonment for several counts of robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(3) and 39-4(a)(2). He was found guilty on January 16, 2015, of prohibited act *.259, failure to comply with an order to submit a specimen for prohibited substance testing, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1. As a result, the following sanctions were imposed: fifteen days detention, ninety days administrative segregation, sixty days loss of commutation time, 365 days random urine monitoring, permanent loss of contact visits, and a referral for a mental health evaluation.
Ingraham then appealed, however, he limited his appeal to only the sanctions. As a result, the Department of Corrections (DOC) final decision, in the "explanation" section of the decision form, merely states that "[n]o leniency will be afforded to you[.]"
It is apparent that Ingraham nonetheless believes he is appealing from a final decision on the merits, as to his guilt on the charge, and that the State is also under that impression. Neither brief addresses the issue of sanctions or the DOC's final decision. We have no choice but to affirm because the appeal is from a decision Ingraham did not brief. Issues not briefed are deemed waived. Gormley v. Wood-El, 218 N.J. 72, 95 n.8 (2014).
Moreover, "[t]he obligation to exhaust 'administrative remedies before resort to the courts is a firmly embedded judicial principle.'" Ortiz v. N.J. Dept. of Corr., 406 N.J. Super. 63, 69 (App. Div. 2009) (citation omitted). Ingraham did not exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to the merits as opposed to merely appealing his sanctions before resort to this court. See Ortiz, supra, 406 N.J. Super. at 69. Given that the DOC's final decision did not include findings on the merits, it would be unfair for us to do so. See Ibid.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION