DWAYNE LAMBERT VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1196-18T3
DWAYNE LAMBERT,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted December 3, 2019 – Decided December 12, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Gilson.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Dwayne Lambert, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Nicholas A. Sullivan, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant, an inmate of the Southern State Correctional Facility, appeals
a determination that imposed disciplinary sanctions due to his having committed
prohibited act *.306 (conduct which disrupts or interferes with the securit y or
orderly running of a correctional facility), N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). He argues
that the hearing officer's determination, which was upheld by the assistant
superintendent, was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and
affirm.
As a result of a physical altercation with another inmate, appellant was
charged with prohibited act *.306, as well as *.004 (fighting with another). At
a hearing, the evidence revealed that appellant told the other involved inmate
that "they couldn't work together." A video captured what followed; it revealed
to the hearing officer that appellant walked towards the other inmate "in an
aggressive manner" and "provoked the fight" that followed. Based on this
evidence, the hearing officer concluded in so many words that appellant received
the brunt of the assault that ensued, but that appellant had engaged in conduct
that triggered the fight. That instigation, in the hearing officer's determination,
was sufficient to support a finding that appellant violated *.306, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
4.1(a).
A-1196-18T3
2
Having closely examined the record in light of the argument posed, we
conclude there was substantial evidence from which the hearing officer could
find appellant violated *.306. Appellant has provided no principled reason for
a departure from our well-established appellate standard of review, which
requires that we not disturb final agency decisions – like that rendered here –
that are not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by credible
evidence. See In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999).
Affirmed.
A-1196-18T3
3