Preview:

An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA05-524
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:                                                                                          3 January  2006
THOMAS E. TILLEY, Trustee,
Defendant-Appellant
v.                                                                                              Orange County
No.  04 CVS  976
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel.,
WILLIAM G. ROSS, JR., SECRETARY,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL and NATURAL
RESOURCES,
Petitioner-Appellee
Appeal by appellant from judgment entered  3 February  2005 by
Judge Wade Barber in Orange County    Superior Court.    Heard in the
Court of Appeals  16 November  2005.
Thomas E. Tilley, pro se.
Attorney  General  Roy  Cooper,  by  Associate  Attorney  General
Nancy R. Dunn, for the State.
CALABRIA, Judge.
Thomas  E.  Tilley                                                                              (“appellant”)  appeals  the  3  February   2005
order  granting  summary  judgment  to  the  State  of  North  Carolina
(“appellee”)  affirming  appellee’s  damage  award  of  $2,087.86  plus
interest.    We affirm.
On                                                                                              6  November                                2001,  Kenneth  Schuster,  the  Water  Quality
Regional Supervisor for the Raleigh Region of the Division of Water
Quality  of  the  North  Carolina  Department  of  Environmental  and




-2-
Natural  Resources                                                                                                                   (“NC-DENR”),  assessed                                                                                      $1,043.93  as  a  civil
                                                                                                                                     penalty  and  enforcement  cost  against  appellant  for  discharging
                                                                                                                                     waste  into  North  Carolina  waters  in  violation  of  both  N.C.  Gen.
Stat.                                                                    §                                                           143-215.1(a)(6)   and   National   Pollutant   Discharge
                                                                         Elimination  System  Permit  No.  NC                                                                                                    0038784                         (“permit”).    A  second
penalty  of                                                              $1,043.93  against  the  appellant  for  a  substantially
similar violation was assessed on  22 July  2002.
Appellant  filed  two  petitions  for  contested  case  hearings
pursuant  to  Article                                                    3  of  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                    §                                                                           150B  regarding  both
assessed penalties.    In both instances, DENR moved to dismiss all
of  appellant’s  claims.     The  Administrative  Law  Judge             (“ALJ”)
presiding over the first petition issued a Final Decision Order of
Dismissal                                                                (“Order  I”)  on                                            22  November                                                                2002.     Order  I  dismissed
appellant’s varied constitutional claims regarding due process and
separation of powers.    Moreover, as to his factual assertions the
permit was not timely issued and its limits not exceeded, appellant
“admitted...he had no evidence  [to] support  [these] claims.”
On  10 March  2003 the same ALJ issued a substantially similar
Final  Decision  Order  of  Dismissal                                    (“Order  II”)  for  appellant’s
second  petition.     Both  Order  I  and  Order  II  provided  notice
informing appellant (1) this was “a Final Decision pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat.  §  150B-36(c)” and consequently,  (2)  “any party wishing
to appeal  [this] final decision of the ALJ may...appeal by filing
a petition for judicial review in...Superior Court...within 30 days
after being served with a...copy of the ALJ’s Decision and Order.”




-3-
Appellant failed to appeal either of the ALJ’s final decisions and
orders and also failed to pay both fines.
On  20  May  2004  pursuant  to  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  143-215.6A(g)
appellee filed a complaint in Superior Court to recover the unpaid
civil penalties owed by appellant.    On  3 February  2005, the trial
court granted summary judgment to appellee and ordered appellant to
pay                                                                           $2,087.86  plus  interest  for  both  violations.     Appellant
appeals.
The  first  question  this  Court  must  address  is  whether  the
Superior  Court  properly  granted  summary  judgment  in  favor  of
appellee.    We hold the Superior Court acted properly.
Summary  judgment  is  appropriate  and                                       “shall  be  rendered
forthwith    if    the    pleadings,    depositions,    answers    to
interrogatories,   and   admissions   on   file,   together   with   the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material  fact....”    N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                      §                                                                 1A-1,  Rule   56(c)   (2003).
“The  party  moving  for  summary  judgment  must  establish...that  no
genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”   Branks v. Kern, 320 N.C.
621,                                                                          623,                                                              359  S.E.2d   780,    782       (1987)   (citations  omitted).    The
movant can carry this burden “by proving that an essential element
of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent or by showing through
discovery  that  the  opposing  party  cannot  produce  evidence  to
support  an  essential  element  of  his  claim.”    Zimmerman  v.  Hogg  &
Allen,  286 N.C.  24,  29,  209 S.E.2d  795,  798  (1974).




-4-
In  the  instant  case,  the  Secretary  of  DENR  requested  the
Attorney  General  institute  a  civil  action  in  Superior  Court  to
recover  from  appellant  the  assessed  penalties.    Thus,  the  only
question presented to the Superior Court was whether appellant had
paid  his  fine  within  the  time  allotted.    Furthermore,  as  part  of
appellee’s  summary  judgment  motion  there  existed  no  substantive
questions regarding the validity of the ALJ’s two final decisions.
In  fact,  appellee’s  complaint  clearly  alleged  the  following:
appellant was assessed multiple fines he had yet to pay; appellant
was  issued  two  final  decisions  via  contested  case  hearings
dismissing  all  of  his  claims;  and  appellant  failed  to  properly
appeal  these  final  decisions  to  a  Superior  Court  for  judicial
review.    Therefore,  as  to  appellee’s  motion  for  summary  judgment
there  existed  no  issue  of  material  fact  in  that  appellant  was
assessed multiple civil fines he had yet to pay and, as a matter of
law,  appellant’s  allegations  were  adjudicated,  dismissed  and  not
properly preserved for appeal.   The court properly granted summary
judgment to the State.
Appellant argues reasons ranging from an alleged lack of due
process to violation of the separation of powers that the Office of
Administrative  Hearing,  the  Environmental  Management  Commission,
and N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 150B-45 through 51 are unconstitutional.   We
disagree.
Appellant, of his own volition, sought contested case hearings
regarding the issuance of two fines pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.  §
143-215.6A(d).   The ALJ presiding at each hearing dismissed all of




-5-
appellant’s  claims.    N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §§  150B-36(c)(1),(4)  (2003)
authorizes  appeals  directly  to  Superior  Court  in  the  following
cases:
(1)   A   determination   that   the   Office   of
Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction.
(4)   An order entered pursuant to a prehearing
motion   to   dismiss   the   contested   case   in
accordance with G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b) when the
order disposes of all issues in the contested
case.
However, the  “person seeking review must file the petition within
30  days  after  the  person  is  served  with  a  written  copy  of  the
decision.     A  person  who  fails  to  file  a  petition  within  the
required  time  waives  the  right  to  judicial  review  under  this
Article.” N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  150B-45  (2003)  (emphasis added).
None  of  the  assignments  of  error  brought  by  appellant  were
properly  appealed.     Both  Order  I  and  Order  II  made  clear  to
appellant  “[t]his is a Final Decision pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§  150B-36(c).”    Consequently, appellant had thirty days to appeal
to  Superior  Court  the  ALJ’s  dual  determination  that  one,  the  ALJ
had no jurisdiction to answer appellant’s multiple constitutional
questions,  see  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  150B-36(c)(1),  supra,  and  two,
appellant’s other factual claims were subject to dismissal pursuant
to  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  1A-1,  Rule  12(b)(6),  see  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §
150B-36(c)(4), supra.   Despite appellant’s failure to object to the
ALJ’s  dismissals  of  his  several  claims,  it  was  incumbent  upon
appellant to appeal Order I and Order II because as each Order was
a  “Final Decision pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  150B-36(c),” N.C.




-6-
Gen. Stat.  §  150B-36(c) provided the exclusive statutory means to
obtain  judicial  review  in  Superior  Court.                               Therefore,  when
appellant failed to appeal either ALJ order within the thirty day
window,  according  to  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  150B-45,  supra,  he  waived
the right to Superior Court review of his constitutional questions.
All of appellant’s assignments of error pertaining to due process
and separation of powers are overruled.
Affirmed.
Judges Bryant and Steelman concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 05-524-5.pdf

South Carolina Law