Nayee v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.

Full title: ANIL NAYEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Dec 3, 2018

DOCKET NO. A-0191-17T3 (App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-0191-17T3

12-03-2018

ANIL NAYEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Respondent.

Anil Nayee, appellant pro se. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Erica R. Heyer, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. Before Judges Alvarez and Reisner. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Anil Nayee, appellant pro se. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Erica R. Heyer, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM

Anil Nayee, a prison inmate, appeals from an August 2, 2017 decision, in the form of an email from Prison Administrator Steven Johnson, notifying Nayee that he was entitled to use the prison law library for five hours per week. After reviewing the record, we affirm. We also conclude that Nayee's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we add the following brief comments.

According to his appellate brief, Nayee requested access to the law library in order to prepare his petition for certification from an Appellate Division decision affirming the denial of his second petition for post-conviction relief. The Department of Corrections brief and appendix demonstrate that Nayee accessed the law library for about eighteen hours between May 15 and June 15, 2017, and he filed the petition with the Supreme Court on June 26, 2017. While the petition was initially rejected for failure to file the required number of copies, Nayee's brief does not document a connection between that deficiency and an alleged inadequate opportunity to conduct legal research. On this record, we cannot conclude that Nayee was deprived of reasonable access to the law library.

Affirmed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION