In re: Final Decision Denying Third Party Hearing Request CMT24-14

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-1164
Filed 21 October 2026
Carteret County, No. 24CVS001000-150
IN RE FINAL DECISION DENYING THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST CMT
24-14
Appeal by respondent from order entered 28 July 2025 by Judge Jason C.
Disbrow in Carteret County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August
2026.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Phillip T.
Reynolds, for the respondent-appellant.
Calhoun Bhella & Sechrest, LLP, by James L. Conner II and Shannon M.
Arata, for the petitioner-appellee.
TYSON, Judge.
Appeal by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division
of Coastal Management (“Respondent”) from order entered in favor of William Judson
Ready, IV, Ph.D (“Petitioner”). We dismiss as interlocutory.
I. Background
Petitioner is the co-owner of real property located at 219 Sea Trace Lane in the
Town of Newport along the Bogue Sound. In 2019, under the Coastal Area

IN RE FINAL DECISION DENYING THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST CMT 24-14
Opinion of the Court
- 2 -
Management Act (“CAMA”), Permit #78413 authorized a neighboring property owner
to construct a sixty-five-foot bulkhead. The neighboring property owner constructed
a seventy-five-foot bulkhead, causing a forty-five-foot shoreline loss at Petitioner’s
property.
Respondent authorized neighboring property owners to construct an additional
sixteen-foot wingwall extension in CAMA Permit # 92857. Petitioner challenged both
permits by filing a Third-Party Hearing Request. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b)
(2025) provides:
A person other than a permit applicant or the Secretary
who is dissatisfied with a decision to deny or grant a minor
or major development permit may file a petition for a
contested case hearing only if the Commission determines
that a hearing is appropriate. A request for a
determination of the appropriateness of a contested case
hearing shall be made in writing and received by the
Commission within 20 days after the disputed permit
decision is made. A determination of the appropriateness
of a contested case shall be made within 30 days after a
request for a determination is received and shall be based
on whether the person seeking to commence a contested
case:
(1) Has alleged that the decision is contrary to a statute or
rule;
(2) Is directly affected by the decision; and
(3) Has alleged facts or legal arguments that demonstrate
that the request for the hearing is not frivolous.
If the Commission determines a contested case is
appropriate, the petition for a contested case shall be filed
within 20 days after the Commission makes its

IN RE FINAL DECISION DENYING THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST CMT 24-14
Opinion of the Court
- 3 -
determination. A determination that a person may not
commence a contested case is a final agency decision and is
subject to judicial review under Article 4 of Chapter 150B
of the General Statutes. If, on judicial review, the court
determines that the Commission erred in determining that
a contested case would not be appropriate, the court shall
remand the matter for a contested case hearing under G.S.
150B-23 and final decision on the permit pursuant to G.S.
113A-122. Decisions in such cases shall be rendered
pursuant to those rules, regulations, and other applicable
laws in effect at the time of the commencement of the
contested case.
Once the request is filed the Coastal Resources Commission’s (“CRC”) chair
reviews the request and applies N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-121.1(b) (2025) to see if the
party is entitled to file a contested case petition in the Office of Administrative
Hearings (“OAH”).
CRC staff found the first two prongs were satisfied, but it recommended the
chair to deny Petitioner’s request because they asserted the issues were frivolous.
The chair’s final decision mirrored the staff’s recommendation to dismiss Petitioner’s
Third-Party Hearing Request for CAMA Permit #92857 and CAMA Permit #78413
as time barred. Petitioner appealed the chair’s final decision to Carteret County
superior court. The court reversed the final decision and authorized Petitioner to file
a contested case petition on both CAMA permits with the OAH. Respondent appealed
to the Court of Appeals.
II. Jurisdiction
A. Interlocutory Appeal

IN RE FINAL DECISION DENYING THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST CMT 24-14
Opinion of the Court
- 4 -
“An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which
does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order
to settle and determine the entire controversy.” Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C.
357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950) (citation omitted). “Generally, there is no right
of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments.” Goldston v. American
Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 725, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990). “This general
prohibition against immediate appeal exists because there is no more effective way
to procrastinate the administration of justice than that of bringing cases to an
appellate court piecemeal through the medium of successive appeals from
intermediate orders.” Harris v. Matthews, 361 N.C. 265, 269, 643 S.E.2d 566, 568
(2007) (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Exceptions
Our Supreme Court has held two circumstances exist where a party is
permitted to appeal an interlocutory order:
First, a party is permitted to appeal from an interlocutory
order when the trial court enters a final judgment as to one
or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties and the
trial court certifies in the judgment that there is no just
reason to delay the appeal. Second, a party is permitted to
appeal from an interlocutory order when the order deprives
the appellant of a substantial right which would be
jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination
on the merits.
Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253
(1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

IN RE FINAL DECISION DENYING THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST CMT 24-14
Opinion of the Court
- 5 -
The superior court did not certify “there is no just reason to delay the appeal”
and the order is not immediately appealable under Rule 54(b). Id.; N.C. Gen. Stat. §
1A-1, Rule 54(b) (2025).
Respondents have not asserted the order is interlocutory and they would be
deprived of a substantial right. Respondents assert the order is a final judgment, and
they hold an appeal of right to this Court, citing N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-27(b)(1) and
150B-52 (2025). We disagree.
C. Dismissal
This Court has previously dismissed purported appeals as interlocutory when
claims remain pending before the OAH and when a party appeals from an order of a
superior court sending an action to the OAH. See Culpepper v. Off. of Admin.
Hearings, 296 N.C. App. 442, 443, 907 S.E.2d d477, 478 (2024) (“conclud[ing]
[petitioner’s] appeal is interlocutory and remains interlocutory as long as either his
first or second claim is pending at the OAH or in the superior court”); Fearrington v.
University of North Carolina, 126 N.C. App. 774, 776-77, 487 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1997)
(noting this Court’s dismissal of petitioner’s prior interlocutory appeal from superior
court’s order, which remanded to OAH for further proceedings (citing Fearrington v.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 116 N.C. App. 358, 448 S.E.2d 148 (1994)
(unpublished)).
III. Conclusion

IN RE FINAL DECISION DENYING THIRD PARTY HEARING REQUEST CMT 24-14
Opinion of the Court
- 6 -
Respondent’s appeal is interlocutory. Respondent has not asserted a
substantial right, which will be lost without immediate appeal. In the exercise of our
discretion, we dismiss Respondent’s appeal as interlocutory. It is so ordered.
DISMISSED.
Judges HAMPSON and STADING concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).