NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an order entered by the Law Division on July 27, 2012, denying his second motion for reconsideration of an April 27, 2012 order dismissing his complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). We affirm.

Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to racially discriminatory educational practices in 1953 while he was a student at Robert Treat Junior High School in Newark. Plaintiff was eleven years old when these incidents occurred. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Law Division on February 3, 2012.

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to enter default against defendant, which responded by filing a cross-motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff had not complied with the notice of claim requirement of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, and because the applicable statute of limitations had expired. After hearing oral argument, Judge Denise A. Cobham rendered a comprehensive oral opinion and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. The judge explained that N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 requires that a claim against a public entity be filed "not later than the 90th day after accrual of the cause of action." However, plaintiff had never filed a notice of claim. In addition, the judge found that, once plaintiff reached the age of majority, he had two years1 to file a complaint against defendant. Because plaintiff did not file his complaint for over fifty years after he was subjected to discrimination, the judge ruled that the complaint must be dismissed.

In so ruling, Judge Cobham thoughtfully considered plaintiff's argument that he was not aware that he had the right to bring his action until approximately 2011 and that he had previously "repressed" his memories of the events of 1953. However, citing our Supreme Court's decision in Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 275-276 (1973), the judge found that the discovery rule could not be applied under the circumstances of this case. The judge noted that defendant would not be able to produce witnesses or documents from five decades ago and, therefore, it would "be seriously and substantially prejudiced in defending against [plaintiff's] claims."

The judge denied plaintiff's subsequent motions for reconsideration. This appeal followed. On appeal, plaintiff again argues that the notice of claim requirement of N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and the statute of limitations should not apply to bar his claims because he had "repressed" his memories of what happened in 1953 and only recently realized that he could file an action against defendant.

We have thoroughly considered plaintiff's arguments. In light of the record and applicable legal principles, we conclude that they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Cobham in her thorough oral opinion.

Affirmed.