{
  "id": 11797078,
  "name": "FRED JACKSON d/b/a COMPLETE CLEANING COMPANY, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Department of Administration",
  "decision_date": "1997-09-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA97-232",
  "first_page": "434",
  "last_page": "437",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 434"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "477 S.E.2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 N.C. 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        867598
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/344/0731-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "468 S.E.2d 813",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "816"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. App. 682",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11919720
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "685"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/121/0682-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "481 S.E.2d 83",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.C. 630",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        54171
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/345/0630-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "471 S.E.2d 115",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11918902
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/122/0609-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E.2d 391",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568391,
        8568432,
        8568464,
        8568315,
        8568351
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0264-03",
        "/nc/292/0264-04",
        "/nc/292/0264-05",
        "/nc/292/0264-01",
        "/nc/292/0264-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S.E.2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "116"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 674",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570077
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0674-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 S.E.2d 769",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "772",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Elmore v. Lanier, Comr. of Insurance, 270 N.C. 674, 678, 155 S.E.2d 114, 116 (1967)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551784
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "646-47",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Elmore v. Lanier, Comr. of Insurance, 270 N.C. 674, 678, 155 S.E.2d 114, 116 (1967)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/31/0641-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 354,
    "char_count": 6067,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.872190187045341e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3682104632355014
    },
    "sha256": "debd7610a8ac3d5bdbe94a07259f26e9a6210b6adf04131ad4325cda22552a0a",
    "simhash": "1:49e9c00e9dab0815",
    "word_count": 931
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:16.540119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHN and SMITH concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FRED JACKSON d/b/a COMPLETE CLEANING COMPANY, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nOn 17 July 1995, petitioner filed a petition for a contested case hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging that respondent \u201crefused to award [him] a contract for janitorial services although .[he] was the lowest responsive bidder to the request for proposal.\u201d On 4 January 1996, Administrative Law Judge Beecher R. Gray entered a recommended decision in which he recommended affirming respondent\u2019s decision.\nOn 4 March 1996, petitioner received a notice of pending final agency decision which informed him that each party had the right to file exceptions to the recommended decision, as well as written arguments. Although petitioner requested, and received, a fifteen-day extension of time in which to file any exceptions and written arguments, petitioner did not do so. On 30 May 1996, the agency entered a final agency decision adverse to petitioner.\nBy petition for judicial review dated 3 July 1996 and filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court, petitioner sought judicial review of the final agency decision. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. On 9 September 1996, the Honorable Marvin K. Gray dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on petitioner\u2019s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Although the basis for Judge Gray\u2019s decision does not appear in the record before this Court, the parties agree that his decision was based on petitioner\u2019s failure to file written exceptions and/or written arguments prior to issuance of the final agency decision.\nThe sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred by dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, petitioner contends that his failure to file written exceptions and/or written arguments has no bearing on the superior court\u2019s jurisdiction, and that \u201c[f]iling exceptions and/or arguments is an optional portion of the contested case remedy.\u201d We agree.\nA party\u2019s right to judicial review is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-43 (1995) which provides, among other things, that a party seeking judicial review must exhaust all available administrative remedies before doing so. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-43 (1995). The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is designed to avoid the \u201c \u2018interruption and cessation of proceedings before a commission by untimely and premature intervention by the courts [which] would completely destroy the efficiency, effectiveness, and purpose of the administrative agencies.\u2019\u201d Church v. Board of Education, 31 N.C. App. 641, 646-47, 230 S.E.2d 769, 772 (1976) (quoting Elmore v. Lanier, Comr. of Insurance, 270 N.C. 674, 678, 155 S.E.2d 114, 116 (1967)), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 292 N.C. 264, 233 S.E.2d 391 (1977). Therefore, as a general rule a party must exhaust all applicable administrative remedies before filing in the superior court. Id.; see also N.C. Central University v. Taylor, 122 N.C. App. 609, 471 S.E.2d 115 (1996), aff'd per curiam, 345 N.C. 630, 481 S.E.2d 83 (1997).\nHere, respondent does not contend that petitioner omitted any of the necessary levels of administrative review. Instead, respondent simply argues that petitioner\u2019s failure to file written exceptions and/or arguments pending final agency review constituted a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This position is not supported by either our case law or the relevant statutory provision.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-36(a) (1995) provides that \u201c[b]efore the agency makes a final decision, it shall give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to the decision recommended by the administrative law judge, and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision or order.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-36(a) (1995) (emphasis added). Although the statute places an affirmative duty on the agency to provide this opportunity to the parties, the plain language of the statute \u201cin no way obligates petitioners to file specific exceptions to the recommended decision before issuance of the final agency decision.\u201d Owen v. UNC-G Physical Plant, 121 N.C. App. 682, 685, 468 S.E.2d 813, 816, disc. review improvidently allowed, 344 N.C. 731, 477 S.E.2d 33 (1996). \u201cTo hold otherwise would require this Court to read language into the statute where none presently exists.\u201d Id.\nAs Owen makes clear, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-36(a) (1995) simply provides the parties with an opportunity to file written exceptions and/or written arguments. By its plain language, it does not create an additional exhaustion hurdle. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.\nReversed and remanded for further proceedings.\nJudges JOHN and SMITH concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dillard Law Offices, by Jesse R. Dillard, Jr., for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Teresa L. White, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FRED JACKSON d/b/a COMPLETE CLEANING COMPANY, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, Respondent\nNo. COA97-232\n(Filed 16 September 1997)\nAdministrative Law and Other Procedure \u00a7 57 (NCI4th) \u2014 judicial review \u2014 final agency decision \u2014 not required\nIn an action challenging the failure of the Department of Administration to award petitioner a contract for janitorial services, the trial court erred by dismissing petitioner\u2019s petition for judicial review for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies where petitioner did not file any written exceptions or arguments to the agency\u2019s final decision. While N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-36(a) provides the parties with an opportunity to file written exceptions and/or written arguments, it does not create an additional exhaustion hurdle and in no way obligated petitioner to file specific exceptions to the recommended decision before issuance of a final agency decision.\nAppeal by petitioner from order entered 9 September 1996 by Judge Marvin K. Gray in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August 1997.\nDillard Law Offices, by Jesse R. Dillard, Jr., for petitioner-appellant.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Teresa L. White, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0434-01",
  "first_page_order": 470,
  "last_page_order": 473
}