Dailey v. Administrator Uca, No. Cv-01-0452839-S (May 29, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Dailey v. Administrator Uca, No. Cv-01-0452839-S (May 29, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6970

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 29, 2002

DocketNo. CV-01-0452839-S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6970 (Dailey v. Administrator Uca, No. Cv-01-0452839-S (May 29, 2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dailey v. Administrator Uca, No. Cv-01-0452839-S (May 29, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6970 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiff has appealed the decision of the defendant Administrator. In his appeal, he recites details of the episode which resulted in his being disciplined by his supervisor. From a reading of that statement and the decision of the Board of Review, it appears that the board did not accept the plaintiff's version of what occurred in its entirety.

As the court explained to this pro se plaintiff, in appeals from decisions of the Board of Review, the court does not hear the case de novo and does not substitute its conclusions for those of the board. (Citations omitted).

The plaintiff has not filed a motion to correct the findings so that the board's findings cannot be challenged in this procedure. Calnan v.Administrator, 43 Conn. App. 777, 783 (1996).

A reading of the record indicates that the decision of the Board of Review is substantially supported and reflects a correct application of the law to the facts found.

Judgment may enter for the defendant Administrator and the appeal is dismissed.

Anthony V. DeMayo, J.T.R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI