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

Full title: ROBERT N. SHAVER, III, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: May 9, 2013

DOCKET NO. A-4885-11T4 (App. Div. May. 9, 2013)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-4885-11T4

05-09-2013

ROBERT N. SHAVER, III, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

Robert N. Shaver, III, appellant pro se. Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christine H. Kim, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Before Judges Parrillo and Fasciale.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Robert N. Shaver, III, appellant pro se.

Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christine H. Kim, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM

Robert N. Shaver, III, appeals from two decisions by a Claims Committee (Committee) of the Department of Corrections denying his property damage claims. We dismiss the appeal for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Shaver is an inmate in State prison. He filed two claims for lost or damaged property. A Lieutenant investigated the matters and submitted them to the Committee for review. The Committee issued a December 23, 2011 decision denying the first claim indicating that Shaver's property was returned to him. The Committee then issued an April 11, 2012 decision denying Shaver's second claim because he failed to attach receipts or appraisals to the property claim form. Shaver did not administratively appeal from these two decisions. Instead, he filed this appeal.

On appeal, Shaver argues he supplied sufficient proof demonstrating that the prison damaged or lost his property. As a result, he seeks reimbursement in the amount of $612.

The scope of our appellate review is limited by Rule 2:2-3(a)(2) (regarding appeals from final decisions or actions of any state administrative agency). As a general proposition, an appellant must exhaust all available administrative relief before taking an appeal. Ortiz v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 406 N.J. Super. 63, 69 (App. Div. 2009); Elon Assocs., LLC v. Twp. of Howell, 370 N.J. Super. 475, 482-84 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 182 N.J. 149 (2004). Shaver has not exhausted his administrative remedies.

Appeal dismissed

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

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION