ORAINE BROWN VS. FLORHAM PARK POLICE DEPARTMENTÂ (L-2642-15, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3117-15T4
ORAINE BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FLORHAM PARK POLICE
DEPARTMENT and FAIRLEIGH
DICKINSON UNIVERSITY (MADISON),
Defendants-Respondents.
______________________________________________
Submitted May 16, 2017 – Decided July 13, 2017
Before Judges Suter and Grall.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket
No. L-2642-15.
Oraine Brown, appellant pro se.
Johnson & Johnson, attorneys for respondent
Florham Park Police Department (William G.
Johnson, of counsel and on the brief).
Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga, LLP, attorneys
for respondent Fairleigh Dickinson
University (Peter J. Pizzi and Sydney J.
Darling, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
On November 4, 2015, plaintiff Oraine Brown filed a
complaint alleging that Fairleigh Dickinson University
(University) and the Florham Park Police Department (Department)
violated his constitutional rights and "broke many laws." The
complaint includes allegations but did not assert any specific
cause of action. He alleged the University had surveillance
cameras that recorded activity on the campus and gave the
recording to the Department in connection with an investigation
of an alleged robbery, despite the fact that the Department had
not obtained a warrant. He alleged that the Department
fabricated and altered evidence, coerced the victim, lied and
intimidated witnesses.
Both defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). Plaintiff did not file
a brief in opposition, but he appeared on the return date and
was heard.
Following argument, which included but was not limited to
argument on defendants' claims that plaintiff filed the
complaint beyond the statute of limitations, the judge dismissed
plaintiff's claims on grounds other than the limitations period.
The judge dismissed claims against the University on the ground
that it was not acting under the color of law as required by the
New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2, and by 42 U.S.C. §
2 A-3117-15T4
1983. The judge dismissed plaintiff's claims against the
Department for failure to file a notice of claim as required by
N.J.S.A. 59:8-1 to -11.
On this appeal defendant contends that the judge "abused
her discretion by dismissing [his] suit based on the [statute]
of limitations without first having a discovery rule hearing."
In his reply brief, plaintiff acknowledges his claim accrued on
January 14, 2014,1 and his failure to apply for leave file a late
notice of claim. He asserts that his delay "was due to the fact
that [he] was fighting two criminal charges one in Morris and
the other in Union [C]ounty."2
We affirm the order of dismissal. Plaintiff's arguments
regarding the statute of limitations are immaterial, because the
judge did not dismiss his complaint on that ground. Plaintiff's
explanation for failure to file a notice of claim within ninety
1
An order entered on January 14, 2014 in a prosecution under
Morris County Indictment No. 13-09-1139, grants plaintiff leave
to represent himself in that proceeding. During oral argument
on the motion in the trial court, and in his reply brief on this
appeal, plaintiff asserts that entry of the January 14, 2014
order gave him access to the information about defendants'
wrongs.
2
Plaintiff does not argue the notice of claim provision is
inapplicable to any claim he would assert against the
Department. See Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319, 331 (1988)
(holding the notice provisions do not apply to claims asserted
under § 1983).
3 A-3117-15T4
days of January 14, 2014, has insufficient merit to warrant
discussion beyond a citation to N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, which requires
a filing within one year of accrual and a showing of
"extraordinary circumstances." Moreover, this court generally
declines to consider arguments not raised in the trial court or
arguments raised for the first time on appeal in a reply brief.
See, e.g., In re Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc., 342 N.J. Super.
439, 442-43 (App. Div. 2001). Having reviewed the record and
materials submitted on appeal, we discern no reason to deviate
from our general practice in this case.
Affirmed.
4 A-3117-15T4