Thomas Earley, D.D.S.; Decision and Order

Issuing agencies

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 166 (Friday, August 28, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 166 (Friday, August 28, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55624-55625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17592]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Thomas Earley, D.D.S.; Decision and Order

    On April 7, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Thomas Earley, 
D.D.S., of Englewood, Ohio (Registrant). Request for Final Agency 
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. AE2384636, 
alleging that Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, 
administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the 
State of Ohio, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 
2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    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 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing, 
and the Agency finds him to be in default. RFAA, at 3.\1\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated June 
8, 2026, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was 
adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator 
(DI) indicates that on April 13, 2026, the DI unsuccessfully 
attempted to serve Registrant at his registered location. RFAAX 5, 
at 2. The same day, the DI emailed Registrant a copy of the OSC to 
three different email addresses linked to Registrant. Id. There is 
no evidence indicating that the emails were undeliverable. The DI 
additionally mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's potential home 
address and registered address. Id. Here, the Agency finds that 
Registrant was successfully served the OSC by email and that the 
DI's efforts to serve Registrant by other means were `reasonably 
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of 
the pendency of the action.' Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 
(2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 
U.S. 306, 314 (1950)); see also Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 
34552, 34552 (2017) (finding that service by email satisfies due 
process where the email is not returned as undeliverable and other 
methods have been unsuccessful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government 
has requested final agency action based on Registrant's default 
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (f)(1), 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. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). 
According to the OSC, Registrant's dental license expired on December 
31, 2025. RFAAX 2, at 1. According to Ohio online records, of which the 
Agency takes official notice, Registrant's Ohio dental license status 
remains expired.\2\ eLicense Ohio Professional Licensure License 
Lookup, <a href="https://elicense.ohio">https://elicense.ohio</a>./oh_verifylicense (last visited date of 
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant 
is not licensed to practice dentistry in Ohio, the state in which he is 
registered with DEA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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).
    \3\ 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 to 
practice dentistry in Ohio. 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 Office of the 
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1858480cf8085858ecf8095958e938f849892a1858480cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb9f9e9ad59a9f9f94d59a8f8f9489959e8288bb9f9e9ad59c948d">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized 
to 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 
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. 802(21).'').\4\ The 
Agency has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., Lawrence 
Rudolph, D.M.D., 89 FR 79310 (2024); Henry-Norbert O. Ndekwe, M.D., 90 
FR 15990 (2025); Benson Sergiles, P.A., 90 FR 32016 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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., Elias Garcia Garcia, P.A., 90 FR 31242 (2025); Jason Weakley, 
R.N., A.P.R.N., 90 FR 10085 (2025); Khursheed Haider, M.D., 90 FR 
21950 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Ohio statute, ``[n]o person shall knowingly obtain, 
possess, or use a controlled substance or a

[[Page 55625]]

controlled substance analog,'' except pursuant to a ``prescription 
issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs 
if the prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.'' Ohio 
Rev. Code Sec.  2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (2025). Further, a ```[l]icensed 
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs' or `prescriber' 
means an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or 
dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the 
individual's professional practice.'' Id. Sec.  4729.01(I). The Ohio 
statute further defines an authorized prescriber as ``[a] dentist 
licensed under Chapter 4715. of the Revised Code.'' Id. Sec.  
4729.01(I)(1). Additionally, Ohio law permits ``[a] licensed health 
professional authorized to prescribe drugs, if acting in the course of 
professional practice, in accordance with the laws regulating the 
professional's practice'' to prescribe or administer schedule II, III, 
IV, and V controlled substances to patients. Id. Sec.  
3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
lacks a license to practice dentistry in Ohio. As discussed above, an 
individual must be a licensed health professional authorized to 
prescribe drugs, which includes a dentist, in order to handle 
controlled substances in Ohio. Thus, because Registrant lacks a license 
to practice dentistry in Ohio and, therefore, is not authorized to 
handle controlled substances in Ohio, Registrant is not eligible to 
maintain a DEA registration in Ohio. 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. 
AE2384636 issued to Thomas Earley, D.D.S. 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 Thomas Earley, D.D.S., to renew 
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application 
of Thomas Earley, D.D.S., for additional registration in Ohio. This 
Order is effective September 28, 2026.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
August 23, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. 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. 2026-17592 Filed 8-27-26; 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>