Notice2025-13316
Osric Malone Prioleau, N.P.; Decision And Order
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 16, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 134 (Wednesday, July 16, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32021-32022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13316]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Osric Malone Prioleau, N.P.; Decision And Order
On February 13, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Osric Malone
Prioleau, N.P., of St. Marys, West Virginia (Registrant). Request for
Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC
proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration
(COR) No. MM2233827, alleging that Registrant is ``currently without
authority to . . . handle controlled substances in the State of West
Virginia, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the OSC and Agency records, Registrant's DEA
registration expired on January 31, 2025, before issuance of the
OSC. RFAAX 2, at 1, 3. ``The Agency has previously held that it is
within its jurisdiction and prerogative to adjudicate a matter to
finality where a registration expired before issuance of the OSC.''
William Thompson IV, M.D., 90 FR 26,610, 26,610 n.1 (2025) (citing
Abdul Naushad, M.D., 89 FR 54,059, 54,059-60 (2024)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request
for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be
deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. Id. at
2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing. RFAA, at 2.\2\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to
constitute a waiver of the registrant's/applicant's right to a hearing
and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR
1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
March 28, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was proper. The included Government's Notice of Service
of the OSC indicates that on February 20, 2025, Registrant was
personally served with the OSC and signed a receipt of service.
RFAAX 1, at 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order
pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.'' Id. at 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the
Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), and 1301.46. RFAA, at 1;
see also 21 CFR 1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the
OSC, Registrant's West Virginia registered nurse license and advanced
practice registered nurse license were suspended by the West Virginia
Board of Registered Nurses on August 22, 2024. RFAAX 2, at 1-2; see
also RFAAX 3. According to West Virginia online records, of which the
Agency takes official notice,\3\ Registrant's West Virginia licenses
have a status of ``Inactive--Suspension.'' West Virginia Board of
Registered Nurses License Lookup, <a href="https://wvrn.boardsofnursing.org/licenselookup/">https://wvrn.boardsofnursing.org/licenselookup/</a> (last visited date of signature of this Order).
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed as a
practitioner in West Virginia, the state in which he is registered with
DEA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979).
\4\ Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ``[w]hen an agency decision
rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the
evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to
an opportunity to show the contrary.'' The material fact here is
that Registrant, as of the date of this Order, is not licensed as a
nurse in West Virginia. Accordingly, Registrant may dispute the
Agency's finding by filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of
the date of this Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed
and served by email to the other party and to the DEA Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#553130347b3431313a7b3421213a273b302c26153130347b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="452120246b2421212a6b2431312a372b203c36052120246b222a33">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General may suspend
or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ``upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration
suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State
[[Page 32022]]
authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . .
. dispensing of controlled substances.''
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the
possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the
laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional
practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a
practitioner's registration. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270
(2006) (``The Attorney General can register a physician to dispense
controlled substances `if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . .
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.' . . . The very definition of a `practitioner' eligible to
prescribe includes physicians `licensed, registered, or otherwise
permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he
practices' to dispense controlled substances. Sec. 802(21).''). The
Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., James L.
Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F.
App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616,
27,617 (1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA). First, Congress defined the term
``practitioner'' to mean ``a physician . . . or other person
licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the
jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense,
. . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress
directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners
. . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.'' 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a
practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation
of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction
whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See,
e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden
Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D.,
58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to West Virginia statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver
a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' W. Va. Code
Sec. 60A-1-101(i) (West 2025). Further, a ``practitioner'' means ``[a]
physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise
permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or
to administer a controlled substance in the course of professional
practice or research in this state.'' Id. at Sec. 60A-1-101(y)(1).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Registrant was specifically licensed to distribute
controlled substances in West Virginia as an advanced practice
registered nurse pursuant to W. Va. Code Sec. 30-7-15a, which
provides explicit authority for advanced practice registered nurses
to distribute controlled substances in accordance with the West
Virginia Uniform Controlled Substances Act (W. Va. Code Sec. 60A,
et. seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant is
not a currently licensed practitioner in West Virginia. As discussed
above, a nurse must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in West Virginia. Thus, because Registrant's nursing licenses
are suspended in West Virginia and, therefore, he is not currently
authorized to handle controlled substances in West Virginia, Registrant
is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in West Virginia.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration
be revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No.
MM2233827 issued to Osric Malone Prioleau, N.P. Further, pursuant to 28
CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I
hereby deny any pending applications of Osric Malone Prioleau, N.P., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Osric Malone Prioleau, N.P., for additional registration
in West Virginia.
This Order is effective August 15, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
July 10, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. That document
with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect
of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-13316 Filed 7-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 16, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.