NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0490-23
ROBERT DIX,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ____________________________
Submitted November 5, 2025 – Decided November 14, 2025
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Rose.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Robert Dix, appellant pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph D. Sams, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Robert Dix, a former inmate at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP), appeals
from an October 24, 2024 final agency decision of the New Jersey Department
of Corrections (NJDOC), denying his claim for reimbursement of missing
property.1 We affirm.
I.
On January 28, 2023, NJSP's Special Operations Group (SOG) conducted
a wing search of the prison housing Dix's cell. During the search, Dix was
removed from his cell and moved to another location. When he returned, Dix
noticed his watch was missing. That evening, Dix entered an inquiry through
the NJDOC's JPay kiosk to NJSP Administration, Special Investigations
Division (SID), and Custody concerning his watch.
On January 20, 2023, Dix received a response from SID through JPay "to
fill out a property claim form for any missing property."
On February 2, 2023, Dix submitted to the NJDOC an Inmate Claim for
Lost, Damaged, or Destroyed Personal Property form. In the form, Dix claimed
loss of a "Citizen Titanium" watch, valued at $500 when it was gifted to him
1 Dix was incarcerated when he filed this appeal. Thereafter, mail sent by the clerk's office to Dix at NJSP was returned and "marked no longer there." In view of the claim asserted, we consider the merits of his appeal; the NJDOC does not argue otherwise. A-0490-23 2 twenty years ago, with a present value of $300. Dix stated he would "accept
$400 plus approval to be replaced at [his] cost" for settlement of the claim. In
response to question seven of the form, the "[m]anner in which item(s) w[ere]
lost, damaged or destroyed," Dix answered: "Wing search by SOG watch was
not in cell when I was returned to the cell." Notably, Dix did not answer question
eight of the form, which sought the "[n]ames of witnesses to the incident." To
support his claim, Dix included a 2009 Personal Property Inventory form from
the Virginia DOC and a 2012 NJDOC Inmate Inventory Sheet, listing the watch
as his personal property. He also submitted 2014 NJSP package invoices, a
receipt, and correspondence regarding repairs to the watch.
On February 8, 2023, the Property Claims Committee notified Dix his
claim could not be processed because he did not provide a receipt for the watch.
On February 15, 2023, Dix responded the watch "was a gift from a family
member who now has dementia, no way to provide a receipt or even a source of
sale." For the first time in this correspondence, Dix mentioned, on January 28,
2023, he "informed the wing [o]fficers, (who were not the regulars), SGT," in
addition to submitting an inquiry through JPay. Dix provided additional NJSP
property inventory sheets from 2018 and 2022, documenting the watch.
A-0490-23 3 On March 30, 2023, the Inmate Claims Committee (Committee) denied
Dix's claim, finding Dix "did not provide necessary documentation that pro[v]ed
authorized possession of the item(s) named in the claim. Sufficient information
has not been supplied by the inmate, including property receipts, witnesses and
investigative reports."
On April 5, 2023, the Administrator "disapproved" Dix's claim. In the
accompanying checklist, the Committee listed: "Citizen watch missing. Not in
Armory. Need proof of purchase. Check w/ search supervisor."
The following day, Dix submitted an inquiry through JPay regarding the
denial of his property claim. Noting he was transferred to the NJSP from another
state, Dix reiterated he had his "watch for a documented 16 or so years, multiple
states with the paper[]work to prove such." Dix inquired as to his next steps for
recovery of his watch, including whether the NJDOC had a list of officers who
searched his cell.
On April 10, 2023, Dix wrote to Claims Processing, Administration,
NJDOC, Custody, and SID regarding the denial of his property claim. Dix asked
where he could obtain investigative reports and witness statements to support
his claim. Dix further stated he reported his missing watch "immediately to the
A-0490-23 4 unit officers (non-regulars), the SGT. Fischer, . . . as well as logging it into the
JPay system."
On May 23, 2023, Dix filed a grievance through JPay regarding his
missing watch and denial of his property claim.
On August 23, 2023, the NJDOC denied the claim, stating: "Property
claims are not addressed via the Jpay [k]iosk. You are required to address
matters of this nature at the institutional level where your claim will be reviewed
and provided with a final decision. Please follow up at the institutional level."
This appeal followed. The NJDOC moved for remand for further
consideration. We granted the motion and retained jurisdiction.
The Committee reevaluated Dix's claim and the Assistant Superintendent
issued a final agency decision on October 24, 2024, denying Dix's property
claim. In the decision, the Assistant Superintendent noted the Committee
initially denied the claim for lack of documentation, including a sales receipt,
and proof of valuation and authenticity.
Turning to the Committee's second review of the claim, the Assistant
Superintendent noted "[a]ll reasonable efforts were made by staff to
reinvestigate this claim, to include speaking with supervisors of search teams
and additional staff." The Assistant Superintendent elaborated:
A-0490-23 5 The Committee determined there was no negligence on behalf of the NJDOC. You indicated that the watch was missing after a[n] SOG search but provided no information to support the claim. The NJDOC cannot determine if the watch was given away, gambled away, or lost/misplaced. The investigation reveals no report of loss/damage on day of search by officers to supervisors as no officers claim any wrongdoing during search procedure. It is noted that you did not report loss/damage on the day of search to your housing unit officers or area supervisor in an effort to immediately document loss.
On appeal, Dix argues the NJDOC's denial of his property claim was
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the agency's decision was
"based solely upon his inability to provide a receipt." For the first time on
appeal, Dix claims "[he] is entitled to reimbursement for all litigation costs."
II.
Our review of an agency decision is limited. See In re Stallworth, 208
N.J. 182, 194 (2011). "It is well-established that an appellate court will not
disturb the ultimate determination of an agency unless it was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable or it was not supported by substantial credible
evidence in the record as a whole." Moore v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-0490-23
ROBERT DIX,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ____________________________
Submitted November 5, 2025 – Decided November 14, 2025
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Rose.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Robert Dix, appellant pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph D. Sams, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Robert Dix, a former inmate at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP), appeals
from an October 24, 2024 final agency decision of the New Jersey Department
of Corrections (NJDOC), denying his claim for reimbursement of missing
property.1 We affirm.
I.
On January 28, 2023, NJSP's Special Operations Group (SOG) conducted
a wing search of the prison housing Dix's cell. During the search, Dix was
removed from his cell and moved to another location. When he returned, Dix
noticed his watch was missing. That evening, Dix entered an inquiry through
the NJDOC's JPay kiosk to NJSP Administration, Special Investigations
Division (SID), and Custody concerning his watch.
On January 20, 2023, Dix received a response from SID through JPay "to
fill out a property claim form for any missing property."
On February 2, 2023, Dix submitted to the NJDOC an Inmate Claim for
Lost, Damaged, or Destroyed Personal Property form. In the form, Dix claimed
loss of a "Citizen Titanium" watch, valued at $500 when it was gifted to him
1 Dix was incarcerated when he filed this appeal. Thereafter, mail sent by the clerk's office to Dix at NJSP was returned and "marked no longer there." In view of the claim asserted, we consider the merits of his appeal; the NJDOC does not argue otherwise. A-0490-23 2 twenty years ago, with a present value of $300. Dix stated he would "accept
$400 plus approval to be replaced at [his] cost" for settlement of the claim. In
response to question seven of the form, the "[m]anner in which item(s) w[ere]
lost, damaged or destroyed," Dix answered: "Wing search by SOG watch was
not in cell when I was returned to the cell." Notably, Dix did not answer question
eight of the form, which sought the "[n]ames of witnesses to the incident." To
support his claim, Dix included a 2009 Personal Property Inventory form from
the Virginia DOC and a 2012 NJDOC Inmate Inventory Sheet, listing the watch
as his personal property. He also submitted 2014 NJSP package invoices, a
receipt, and correspondence regarding repairs to the watch.
On February 8, 2023, the Property Claims Committee notified Dix his
claim could not be processed because he did not provide a receipt for the watch.
On February 15, 2023, Dix responded the watch "was a gift from a family
member who now has dementia, no way to provide a receipt or even a source of
sale." For the first time in this correspondence, Dix mentioned, on January 28,
2023, he "informed the wing [o]fficers, (who were not the regulars), SGT," in
addition to submitting an inquiry through JPay. Dix provided additional NJSP
property inventory sheets from 2018 and 2022, documenting the watch.
A-0490-23 3 On March 30, 2023, the Inmate Claims Committee (Committee) denied
Dix's claim, finding Dix "did not provide necessary documentation that pro[v]ed
authorized possession of the item(s) named in the claim. Sufficient information
has not been supplied by the inmate, including property receipts, witnesses and
investigative reports."
On April 5, 2023, the Administrator "disapproved" Dix's claim. In the
accompanying checklist, the Committee listed: "Citizen watch missing. Not in
Armory. Need proof of purchase. Check w/ search supervisor."
The following day, Dix submitted an inquiry through JPay regarding the
denial of his property claim. Noting he was transferred to the NJSP from another
state, Dix reiterated he had his "watch for a documented 16 or so years, multiple
states with the paper[]work to prove such." Dix inquired as to his next steps for
recovery of his watch, including whether the NJDOC had a list of officers who
searched his cell.
On April 10, 2023, Dix wrote to Claims Processing, Administration,
NJDOC, Custody, and SID regarding the denial of his property claim. Dix asked
where he could obtain investigative reports and witness statements to support
his claim. Dix further stated he reported his missing watch "immediately to the
A-0490-23 4 unit officers (non-regulars), the SGT. Fischer, . . . as well as logging it into the
JPay system."
On May 23, 2023, Dix filed a grievance through JPay regarding his
missing watch and denial of his property claim.
On August 23, 2023, the NJDOC denied the claim, stating: "Property
claims are not addressed via the Jpay [k]iosk. You are required to address
matters of this nature at the institutional level where your claim will be reviewed
and provided with a final decision. Please follow up at the institutional level."
This appeal followed. The NJDOC moved for remand for further
consideration. We granted the motion and retained jurisdiction.
The Committee reevaluated Dix's claim and the Assistant Superintendent
issued a final agency decision on October 24, 2024, denying Dix's property
claim. In the decision, the Assistant Superintendent noted the Committee
initially denied the claim for lack of documentation, including a sales receipt,
and proof of valuation and authenticity.
Turning to the Committee's second review of the claim, the Assistant
Superintendent noted "[a]ll reasonable efforts were made by staff to
reinvestigate this claim, to include speaking with supervisors of search teams
and additional staff." The Assistant Superintendent elaborated:
A-0490-23 5 The Committee determined there was no negligence on behalf of the NJDOC. You indicated that the watch was missing after a[n] SOG search but provided no information to support the claim. The NJDOC cannot determine if the watch was given away, gambled away, or lost/misplaced. The investigation reveals no report of loss/damage on day of search by officers to supervisors as no officers claim any wrongdoing during search procedure. It is noted that you did not report loss/damage on the day of search to your housing unit officers or area supervisor in an effort to immediately document loss.
On appeal, Dix argues the NJDOC's denial of his property claim was
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the agency's decision was
"based solely upon his inability to provide a receipt." For the first time on
appeal, Dix claims "[he] is entitled to reimbursement for all litigation costs."
II.
Our review of an agency decision is limited. See In re Stallworth, 208
N.J. 182, 194 (2011). "It is well-established that an appellate court will not
disturb the ultimate determination of an agency unless it was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable or it was not supported by substantial credible
evidence in the record as a whole." Moore v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super.
103, 110 (App. Div. 2000); see also R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D); Henry v. Rahway State
Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).
A-0490-23 6 "A reviewing court 'may not substitute its own judgement for the agency's,
even though the court might have reached a different result.'" Stallworth, 208
N.J. at 194 (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007)). "This is particularly
true when the issue under review is directed to the agency's special 'expertise
and superior knowledge of a particular field.'" Id. at 195 (quoting In re
Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28, (2007)). But an agency's "interpretation of the law
and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to
any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan,
140 N.J. 366, 378, (1995).
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(a), an inmate must file a claim for lost,
damaged, or destroyed property with the administrator or designee. Once an
inmate properly files a claim for lost, damaged, or destroyed personal property,
the NJDOC must investigate and prepare a report. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b). "The
investigation . . . shall consist of, but not be limited to: (1) [o]btaining
statements from the inmate, witnesses and correctional facility staff; and (2)
[v]erifying that the inmate was authorized to have and did in fact, possess the
personal property named in the claim." N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b)(1) and (2).
"Verification of possession of lost, damaged or destroyed personal property may
be made by review of applicable documentation such as the IIS-1M Inmate
A-0490-23 7 Inventory Sheet maintained by the correctional facility." N.J.A.C. 10A:2-
6.1(b)(1)(3).
When deciding whether to approve an inmate's property claim, the
NJDOC must consider:
1. Whether the investigation revealed any neglect by the correctional facility;
2. Whether care was exercised by facility staff preventing property loss, damage or destruction;
3. Whether the inmate exercised care in preventing property loss, damage or destruction;
4. Whether it has been proven that the inmate was authorized to have and did, in fact, possess the item(s) named in the claim;
5. Whether sufficient information has been supplied by the inmate, including proper receipts, witnesses and investigative reports;
6. Whether the inmate submitted the claim in a timely manner;
7. Whether the loss or damage exceeds authorized amounts of correctional facility personal property limits;
8. Whether the personal property is considered contraband; and
9. Whether other reviewers recommend denial of the claim and the reasons therefor.
A-0490-23 8 [N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a).]
If a claim is denied, the NJDOC must notify the inmate in writing and provide
substantiating reasons. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(f).
On remand in the present matter, the Committee reinvestigated Dix's
claim, spoke with the search teams' supervisors and additional staff members,
and determined there was no negligence on behalf of the NJDOC. Pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(5), Dix had the burden of producing "sufficient
information" to enable a meaningful investigation. Although Dix made an
inquiry through JPay the evening of the search and presented documentation
indicating he owned the watch, the reinvestigation revealed Dix failed to notify
his housing unit officers or their supervisors of his claim. Further, the
Committee spoke with the search teams' supervisors and no reports of loss or
damage were made following the search.
In summary, Dix failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that
his watch was stolen or otherwise misappropriated during the search. Nor did
he substantiate his claim that the watch was worth $400. We are therefore
satisfied there was "sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole," R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(D), to support the NJDOC's reasons for denying Dix's claim. We
A-0490-23 9 conclude the NJDOC's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
See Moore, 335 N.J. Super. at 110.
To the extent not addressed, any remaining contentions lack sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0490-23 10