Spells v. Bd. of Educ. of the Matawan-Aberdeen Reg'l Sch. Dist. of Monmouth Cnty.

Full title: WAYNE SPELLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Feb 27, 2012

DOCKET NO. A-4786-10T3 (App. Div. Feb. 27, 2012)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-4786-10T3

02-27-2012

WAYNE SPELLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE MATAWAN-ABERDEEN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MONMOUTH COUNTY, Respondent-Respondent.

Andrew L. Schwartz argued the cause for appellant (Law office of Robert M. Schwartz, attorneys; Robert M. Schwartz, and on the brief). David B. Rubin argued the cause for respondent Board of Education of the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District of Monmouth County. Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Commissioner of Education (Caroline Jones, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Before Judges Cuff and St. John.
On appeal from the Commissioner of Education, Docket No. 249-8/08.
Andrew L. Schwartz argued the cause for appellant (Law office of Robert M. Schwartz, attorneys; Robert M. Schwartz, and on the brief).
David B. Rubin argued the cause for respondent Board of Education of the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District of Monmouth County.
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Commissioner of Education (Caroline Jones, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Wayne Spells appeals from a final decision of the Commissioner of Education, who upheld the decision by respondent Board of Education of the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District (Board) to withhold from Spells a salary increment for the 2008-09 school year. Spells contends that the Commissioner's decision should be reversed because the Board failed to comply with its stated policies and regulations.

Having reviewed the record in its entirety, we conclude that the arguments presented by appellant are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.