Notice2026-19230
John Ramsay Walters, M.D.; 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
September 21, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 181 (Monday, September 21, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 181 (Monday, September 21, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59797-59798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19230]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
John Ramsay Walters, M.D.; Decision and Order
On March 17, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to John Ramsay Walters,
M.D., of Oxnard, CA (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. AW8146602, alleging that
Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, administer,
dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of
California, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2.
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration
expired on May 31, 2026. The fact that a registrant allows his
registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact
the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D.
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-68479 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 June
10, 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 March 20, 2026, the DI traveled with another
DI to Registrant's residence. RFAAX 3, at 3. There was no answer at
the front door, after which the DI called Registrant. Id. Over the
phone, Registrant told the DI he was not home and that his office/
clinic was closed that day and no one was available to receive a
copy of the OSC, to which the DI told him that she would leave a
copy at his front door. Id.; see also id., Attachment C. Later that
day, the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's registered
address. Id.; see also id., Attachment D. The DI additionally
emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's registered email address
and the email was not returned as undelivered. Id.; see also id.,
Attachment E. 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)). Therefore, due process notice requirements have been
satisfied. See 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); Emilio Luna, M.D., 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012) (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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), (e), (f), and 1301.46. RFAA, at
1; see 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, on September 25, 2025, the Medical Board of
California adopted a Stipulated Surrender of License and Disciplinary
Order against Registrant, effective December 31, 2025. RFAAX 2, at 2.
On December 31, 2025, Registrant surrendered his California medical
license. Id. According to California online records, of which the
Agency takes official notice,\3\ Registrant's California medical
license has a primary status of ``License Surrendered.'' California DCA
License Search, <a href="https://search.dca.ca.gov">https://search.dca.ca.gov</a> (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant
is not licensed to practice medicine in California, 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 to
practice medicine in California. 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#3f5b5a5e115e5b5b50115e4b4b504d515a464c7f5b5a5e11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9cdccc887c8cdcdc687c8ddddc6dbc7ccd0dae9cdccc887cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59798]]
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).''). The Agency
has applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., Merry Alice
Troupe, N.P., 89 FR 81,549, (2024); Rachel Jackson, P.A., 90 FR 13,198
(2025).\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 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates,
M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR
51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988);
Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to California 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, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code
Sec. 11010 (West 2026). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled
substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the]
state.'' Id. at Sec. 11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As
discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to
dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and,
therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in
California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration
in California. 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.
AW8146602 issued to John Ramsay Walters, M.D. 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 John Ramsay Walters, M.D., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of John Ramsay Walters, M.D., for additional registration
in California. This Order is effective October 21, 2026.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
September 11, 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. 2026-19230 Filed 9-18-26; 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>Indexed from Federal Register on September 21, 2026.
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.