AIM Pharmacy & Surgical S. Corp. Order, 46326 [2015-19116]

Download as PDF 46326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES with a hearing to challenge the State’s action at which he may ultimately prevail.’’ Kamal Tiwari, M.D., 76 FR 71604, 71606, (2011); see also Bourne Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847 (1997). Additionally, Agency precedent has established that the existence of other proceedings in which the Respondent is involved is not a basis upon which to justify a stay of DEA administrative enforcement proceedings. Grider Drug #1 & Grider Drug #2, 77 FR 44069, 44104 n.97 (2012). Congress does not intend for administrative agencies to perform meaningless tasks. See Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983), aff’d sub nom. Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); see also Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. EPA, 35 F.3d 600, 605 (1st Cir. 1994); NLRB v. Int’l Assoc. of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL–CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Consol. Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432, 453 (9th Cir. 1971). Thus, it is well-settled that, where no genuine question of fact is involved, or when the material facts are agreed upon, a plenary, adversarial administrative proceeding is not required. See Jesus R. Juarez, M.D., 62 FR 14945 (1997); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993). Here, the supplied IDFPR Order establishes, and the Respondent does not contest, that the Respondent is currently without authorization to handle controlled substances in Illinois, the jurisdiction where the Respondent holds the DEA COR that is the subject of this litigation. Summary disposition of an administrative case is warranted where, as here, ‘‘there is no factual dispute of substance.’’ See Veg-Mix, Inc., 832 F.2d 601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (‘‘an agency may ordinarily dispense with a hearing when no genuine dispute exists’’).4 At this juncture, no genuine dispute exists over the fact that the Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances in the state of Illinois. Because the Respondent lacks such state authority, both the plain language of applicable federal statutory provisions and Agency interpretive precedent dictate that the Respondent is not entitled to maintain his DEA 4 Even assuming, arguendo, the possibility that the Respondent’s state controlled substances privileges could be reinstated, summary disposition would still be warranted because ‘‘revocation is also appropriate when a state license has been suspended, but with the possibility of future reinstatement,’’ Rodriguez, 70 FR at 33207 (citations omitted), and even where there is a judicial challenge to the state medical board action actively VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 registration. Simply put, there is no contested factual matter adducible at a hearing that would provide DEA with the authority to allow the Respondent to continue to hold his COR. Accordingly, I hereby GRANT the Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition; and further DENY the Respondent’s Request for Stay; and further RECOMMEND that the Respondent’s DEA registration be REVOKED forthwith and any pending applications for renewal be DENIED. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA–392] Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. ACTION: Notice of registration. BILLING CODE 4410–09–P National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice dated April 14, 2015, and published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2015, 80 FR 22559, National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc., University of Mississippi, 135 Coy Waller Complex, University, Mississippi 38677–1848 applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. No comments or objections were submitted for this notice. The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of National Center for Natural Products Research (NIDA MPROJECT), Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company’s maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company’s physical security systems, verifying the company’s compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company’s background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances: pending in the state courts. Michael G. Dolin, M.D., 65 FR 5661, 5662 (2000). 1 After both the Administrator’s Order and the Government’s Response were returned to the Agency as undelivered following efforts to serve both of Respondent’s counsels, the Government determined through the New York State Unified Court System’s database that each attorney had a different address than that listed in the record. Notice of Recent Order and Government’s Response II, at 1–2. The Government represents that on June 30, 2015, it served both the Administrator’s Order and its Response on each of Respondent’s attorneys by mailing them to the addresses of Respondent’s attorneys as listed in the New York Unified Court System’s database. Id. at 2. Dated: March 20, 2015. JOHN J. MULROONEY, II, Chief Administrative Law Judge. [FR Doc. 2015–19119 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 12–49] AIM Pharmacy & Surgical S. Corp. Order On May 8, 2015, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, noting that the expiration date of Respondent’s registration was June 30, 2014, ordered the parties to address whether the case is now moot. The Administrator’s Order was served on Respondent’s counsel at his address of record. The Government filed a timely response and served a copy of its response on Respondent’s counsel at his address of record. Govt. Response to Administrator’s May 8, 2015 Order, at 1. Respondent has not filed a response.1 In its Response, the Government advises that Respondent neither submitted a renewal application prior to the expiration of its registration nor an application for a new registration. Id. The Government therefore acknowledges that this case is now moot. Id.; see Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998). Accordingly, I dismiss the Order to Show Cause. It is so ordered. Date: July 27, 2015. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2015–19116 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 46326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19116]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 12-49]


AIM Pharmacy & Surgical S. Corp. Order

    On May 8, 2015, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, noting that the expiration date of Respondent's 
registration was June 30, 2014, ordered the parties to address whether 
the case is now moot. The Administrator's Order was served on 
Respondent's counsel at his address of record.
    The Government filed a timely response and served a copy of its 
response on Respondent's counsel at his address of record. Govt. 
Response to Administrator's May 8, 2015 Order, at 1. Respondent has not 
filed a response.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ After both the Administrator's Order and the Government's 
Response were returned to the Agency as undelivered following 
efforts to serve both of Respondent's counsels, the Government 
determined through the New York State Unified Court System's 
database that each attorney had a different address than that listed 
in the record. Notice of Recent Order and Government's Response II, 
at 1-2. The Government represents that on June 30, 2015, it served 
both the Administrator's Order and its Response on each of 
Respondent's attorneys by mailing them to the addresses of 
Respondent's attorneys as listed in the New York Unified Court 
System's database. Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Response, the Government advises that Respondent neither 
submitted a renewal application prior to the expiration of its 
registration nor an application for a new registration. Id. The 
Government therefore acknowledges that this case is now moot. Id.; see 
Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998). Accordingly, I dismiss the 
Order to Show Cause.
    It is so ordered.

    Date: July 27, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-19116 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P