05-001211RU Frank M. Bafford, Sr. vs. Florida Commission On Human Relations Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Monday, March 27, 2006.

Summary: Petitioner`s Motion for Rule Challenge Proceeding in each case failed to meet the requirements of the statute, both in form and substance; Petitioner has a fundamental misunderstanding of FCHR`s function and the history of his prior cases before DOAH.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FRANK M. BAFFORD, SR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case Nos. 05-0966RU

) 05-1211RU

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN ) 05-1219RU

RELATIONS, ) 05-1462RU

) 05-1664RU

Respondent. ) 05-2050RU

)

SUMMARY FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

These causes came on for review upon numerous motions and

the waiver by the parties of the need for an evidentiary hearing

before Daniel M. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), in Tallahassee,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Frank M. Bafford, Sr., pro se

9622 Theresa Drive

Thonotosassa, Florida 33592

For Respondent: William J. Tait, Jr., Esquire

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4830

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether the Motions for Rule Challenge Proceedings

(referred to as Petition(s)) filed in each of the above-cited

cases meet the requirements both in form and substance, pursuant

to Subsection 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004);

Whether Respondent, Florida Commission on Human Relations

(FCHR), has inherent authority to reconsider a Final Order it

has issued; and

Whether FCHR should adopt a rule which would permit the

granting of a motion to reconsider a Final Order.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

A. Petitioner, Frank M. Bafford, Sr., filed his first

Petition against FCHR on March 15, 2005, and the case was

assigned to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and

given DOAH Case No. 05-0966RU.

B. Petitioner requested a procedural change in his first

Petition on March 23, 2005, and later gave a Notice of

Clarification or Stay on March 28, 2005. Following a conference

call, the undersigned ALJ issued an Order on April 1, 2005,

placing the proceeding in abeyance, noting that the parties

agreed that there are no disputed issues of material fact; that

the issues remaining for determination are legal in nature,

which can be determined by submittal of legal briefs; and that

Petitioner fully understood that he was waiving his right to an

evidentiary hearing in this matter. A schedule was set for the

filing of the initial reply and response briefs on two issues.

Petitioner submitted his initial "argument" on April 4, 2005.

C. Petitioner also submitted a second (April 1, 2005--DOAH

Case No. 05-1211RU) and a third (April 4, 2005--DOAH Case

No. 05-1219RU) rule challenge. An Order was issued

consolidating the two new rule challenges into the previous one

and specifying dates for the briefs for those challenges.

Petitioner submitted his initial brief on the two additional

rule challenges and denoted "arguments" on April 14, 2005.

D. Petitioner submitted a fourth rule challenge (April 19,

2005--DOAH Case No. 05-1462RU), which was consolidated with the

three previous cases.

E. On April 24, 2005, Petitioner submitted a Motion to

Stay. A telephonic hearing took place on April 25, 2005, at

which time Petitioner, Respondent's attorney, and the

undersigned ALJ conferred about Petitioner's request. An Order

placing the four pending rule challenge cases in abeyance was

issued on May 4, 2005, suspending the briefing schedule and

requiring a status briefing by the parties prior to June 1,

2005.

F. Petitioner then submitted his fifth (May 10, 2005--DOAH

Case No. 05-1664RU) rule challenge and a third Order (May 13,

2005) consolidating that challenge with the four earlier ones

was issued.

G. Petitioner, subsequently, filed a Motion for Extension

of Stay on May 18, 2005, in which Petitioner requested a six-

month stay on all pending cases. Petitioner alleged that he had

"seen a professional and they [sic] have suggested that he take

this amount of time away from his cases." Respondent did not

object to the motion, and on May 23, 2005, an Order was issued

to abate the five consolidated cases until December 1, 2005.

H. Nevertheless, Petitioner then submitted his sixth

(June 5, 2005--DOAH Case No. 05-2050RU) rule challenge, and a

fourth Order (June 13, 2005) consolidating that challenge with

the five earlier ones was issued. On June 16, 2005, an Order to

abate the six consolidated cases until December 1, 2005, was

issued.

I. While pursuing the above rule challenges, Petitioner

had also filed two additional complaints of discrimination with

FCHR based on the same set of events that occurred in the Spring

of 2004 leading up to his initial complaint (FCHR Case No.

24-91007H) that was, subsequently, dismissed by FCHR upon his

withdrawal of the Complaint that was pending before another ALJ

( Bafford v. Hediger, et al. , Case No. 04-3272 (DOAH December 16,

2004, Recommended Order of Dismissal and FCHR Final Order

No. 05-017, February 22, 2005).

J. While reserving its ruling on jurisdiction, FCHR

accepted the two complaints for investigation on June 3, 2005,

and July 27, 2005, respectively. The June 3, 2005, Complaint

(FCHR Case No. 25-91671H) consisted of the same or similar facts

and the same Respondents (with several additional Respondents in

the same ownership group) as the initial complaint filed and,

subsequently, abandoned by Petitioner. The July 27, 2005,

Complaint (FCHR Case No. 25-91672H) consisted of the same basic

set of events leading to the initial and June 3, 2005,

Complaints, but also included allegations of later actions. In

addition, new allegations were filed against Petitioner's three

sets of former attorneys and one of the original Respondents.

It alleged a violation of Section 818 of the Federal Fair

Housing Act (FHA), relating to intimidation, coercion and

interference (harassment), and retaliation.

K. During the investigative phase of these new complaints,

Petitioner filed additional rule challenges with the DOAH

directed towards challenging FCHR's investigatory procedures and

actions.

L. Petitioner filed his seventh (August 18, 2005--DOAH

Case No. 05-2985RU) and eighth (August 18, 2005--DOAH Case

No. 05-2986RU) rule challenge and moved for a telephonic

conference. An Order consolidating the two cases was issued, as

well as the Order Following Telephone Conference dated

August 26, 2005. The Order required Respondent to file a

response to Petitioner's motions on or before September 2, 2005,

and allowed Petitioner to file a reply thereto on or before

September 9, 2005. Both Respondent and Petitioner filed a

timely response and reply, respectively.

M. Petitioner filed his ninth and tenth rule challenges

(September 1, 2005--DOAH Case Nos. 05-3167RU and 05-3168RU).

Petitioner, subsequently, filed a "Notice as Reminder"

indicating that he seemed ready for a hearing on the challenge

and had no current disabilities.

N. Petitioner filed his eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth

rule challenges (September 13, 2005--DOAH Case No. 05-3294RU;

October 17, 2005--DOAH Case No. 05-3808RU; and October 26,

2005--DOAH Case No. 05-3981RU, respectively).

O. Petitioner has also brought suit against the same

Respondents as in DOAH Case No. 04-3272, other than his

attorneys, in both state and federal court based on the same set

of alleged circumstances leading to his complaints with FCHR.

P. The Honorable James S. Moody, Jr., Judge of the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa

Division, dismissed his federal case (Case No. 8:04-CV-1502-T-

30MSS), on March 3, 2005, specifically finding that the facts of

his case as alleged, including his "intent to dwell," did not

change the finding that the underlying complaint was not covered

by the FHA, citing Home Quest Mortgage LLC v. American Family

Mutual Insurance Co. , 340 F. Supp. 1177, 1186 (D. Kan. 2004);

Shaikh v. City of Chicago , No. 00-C-4235, WL 123784, *4

(N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2001). The United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed his appeal (Case No.

05-11309-11) on June 10, 2005, as frivolous. The court cited

Eleventh Circuit Rule No. 42-4, which states: "Frivolous

Appeals. If it shall appear to the court at any time that an

appeal is frivolous and entirely without merit, the appeal may

be dismissed." The rule also cross-references Rules 3 and 38 of

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. Section

1927.

Q. DOAH Case Nos. 05-2985RU, 05-2986RU, 05-3167RU,

05-3168RU, 05-3294RU, 05-3808RU, and 05-3981RU have been

consolidated and abated.

R. The cases cited in paragraphs Q are being treated in a

separate Summary Final Order of Dismissal.

S. Petitioner has also brought suit against the same

Respondents as in DOAH Case No. 04-3272, other than his

attorneys, in state circuit court, Case No. 04-04230

(Division E), in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for

Hillsborough County. The Court dismissed the action with leave

to amend and dissolved a Lis Pendens . Petitioner, subsequently,

served a Second Amended Complaint and obtained a stay. It

appears that this case is still pending.

T. Petitioner has also filed complaints with the Florida

Bar against his former attorneys based on the same set of

alleged circumstances leading to his complaints with FCHR. The

Florida Bar found no ethical violations by any of the attorneys

involved and dismissed his complaints.

U. Petitioner has provided "arguments" for his petitions

in DOAH Case Nos. 05-0966RU, 05-1211RU, and 05-1219RU and a

"Reply to Respondent's Responses" for his petitions in DOAH Case

Nos. 05-2985RU and 05-2986RU. Where Petitioner has supplied

additional information beyond that contained in the Petition (as

in DOAH Case Nos. 05-0966RU, 05-2985RU and 05-2986RU),

Respondent has provided responses. In all other Petitions,

including DOAH Case Nos. 05-1211RU and 05-1219RU, where

Petitioner's "argument" merely consisted of attaching his

original Petition, Respondent has provided responses to the

extent possible.

V. On December 23, 2005, Petitioner filed his fourteenth

(DOAH Case No. 05-4681RU) and fifteenth (DOAH Case No.

05-4688RU) rule challenge. Upon review by this ALJ, it was

determined that the Petitions failed to comply with the

statutory requirements of Subsection 120.54(1) and/or (4),

Florida Statutes (2004), and were dismissed without prejudice.

Petitioner was given 21 days to amend the Petitions in order to

comply with the statute or the cases would be automatically

dismissed with prejudice. The deadline has passed, and no

amendment to the Petitions have been filed.

W. On January 3, 2006, Petitioner filed his sixteenth rule

challenge (DOAH Case No. 06-0001RU). Upon review, it was

determined that the Petition failed to comply with the statutory

requirements of Subsection 120.54(1) and/or (4), Florida

Statutes (2004), and was dismissed without prejudice.

Petitioner was given 21 days to amend the Petition in order to

comply with the statute or the case would be automatically

dismissed with prejudice. The deadline has passed, and no

amendment to the Petition has been filed.

X. On January 26, 2006, Petitioner filed four additional

rule challenges (DOAH Case Nos. 06-0332RU, 06-0333RU, 06-0334RU,

and 06-0335RU). Upon review, it was determined that the

Petitions failed to comply with the statutory requirements of

Subsection 120.54(1) and/or (4), Florida Statutes (2004), and

were dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner was given 21 days

to amend the Petitions in order to comply with the statute or

the cases would be automatically dismissed with prejudice. The

deadline has passed, and no amendment to the Petitions have been

filed.

Y. During the Fall of 2005, while Petitioner continued to

file additional rule challenges at DOAH, FCHR issued its Notice

of Determination: No Cause in FCHR Case Nos. 25-91671H and

25-91672H (referred to in paragraph J). Petitioner timely filed

his Petitions for Relief alleging housing discrimination and

other allegations on December 15, 2005, which were assigned DOAH

Case Nos. 05-4562 and 05-4563, respectively. Immediately

thereafter, Petitioner filed various motions with the

undersigned ALJ seeking a stay or for the Petitions to be

referred back to FCHR for further investigation. These motions

were denied, and the matter set for hearing in Tampa on

February 15 and 16, 2006. In addition to various other motions,

on February 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion for 90 Day Stay

to Gather Thoughts, which was denied. On February 9, 2006,

Petitioner filed a Notice of Impairment and other motions. In

response thereto, an Order was issued directing Petitioner to

show proof that Petitioner was under the care of a physician and

that he was impaired and unable to appear at the final hearing

and present his case. On February 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a

Notice of Dr.'s Determination. Upon review, the notice was

determined to be inadequate; and on February 14, 2006, the

parties were notified that all pending motions would be heard

before the undersigned ALJ prior to the commencement of the

formal hearing scheduled for February 15 and 16, 2006, in Tampa.

At 5:00 p.m. that same day, Petitioner filed a Notice of

Dismissal in both cases. An Order Closing Files was issued on

February 15, 2006, and the matter was referred back to FCHR for

final agency action. FCHR has not entered a final order on

those cases, as of the date of this Summary Final Order of

Dismissal. However, Petitioner has filed an appeal with the

Second District Court of Appeal, which is still pending.

Upon a complete review of each of these files and being

fully advised in the premises, it is

FOUND AND DETERMINED as follows:

1. In DOAH Case Nos. 05-0966RU; 05-1211RU; 05-1219RU,

05-1462RU, 05-1664RU and 05-2050RU, as to each case, there are

no genuine issues as to any material fact. Fla. Admin. Code

R. 28-106.204(4).

2. All petitions are found to be deficient in both form

and substance, pursuant to the requirements set forth in

Subsection 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004). None of the

Petitions include the text of the purported statement and few,

if any, provide adequate descriptions of a purported statement.

Where descriptions have been provided, the description does not

state with particularity facts sufficient to show that the

statement constitutes a rule under Section 120.52, Florida

Statutes (2004), and that the agency has not adopted the

statement by the rulemaking procedure provided by Section

120.54, Florida Statutes (2004).

AS TO DOAH CASE NO. 05-0966RU

3. Petitioner stated FCHR did not grant him his request

for reconsideration of its Final Order dismissing his case (FCHR

Order No. 05-017). In addition to being deficient in both form

and substance, as held above, the Petition is dismissed for the

following additional reasons. Adding to his Petition filed on

March 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a "Notice of Argument on

Reconsideration" on April 4, 2005, pursuant to the Order dated

April 1, 2005. In his "argument," he argues that FCHR has:

a. Inherent authority to reconsider its Final

Order and cites several cases from Oregon and federal

appellate courts in the sixth and second circuits.

FCHR has not disputed that it has "inherent" authority

to reopen cases for good cause in which it has issued

Final Orders. However, a state agency's authority is

limited. As cogently stated by the First District

Court of Appeal in Department of Environmental

Regulation v. Falls Chase Special Taxing District , 424

So. 2d 787, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. den. 436

So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1983):

An agency has only such power as expressly

or by necessary implication is granted by

legislative enactment. An agency may not

increase its own jurisdiction and, as a

creature of statute, has no common law

jurisdiction or inherent power such as might

reside in, for example, a court of general

jurisdiction. When acting outside the scope

of its delegated authority, an agency acts

illegally and is subject to the jurisdiction

of the courts when necessary to prevent

encroachment on the rights of individuals.

b. In the instant case, it is undisputed that

Petitioner voluntarily dismissed his case before an

ALJ in an open hearing after being advised that such

withdrawal would cause his action to be dismissed with

prejudice. Petitioner did not provide FCHR with any

exceptions to the ALJ's Final Order dismissing the

case and closing the file as provided in Florida

Administrative Code Rule 28-106.217, and a FCHR panel

on review determined that the case was appropriately

dismissed. Even if FCHR granted a reconsideration of

its Final Order dismissing the case and allowed

Petitioner to file exceptions, FCHR is bound by the

Finding of Facts in which the ALJ found that

Petitioner, after being fully advised, voluntarily

dismissed his case in an open hearing.

c. Petitioner further stated that FCHR provided

an internal review process for complaints that are

determined not to be within its jurisdiction by an

intake investigator; that is, its letter informing a

complainant that FCHR did not have jurisdiction to

take their complaint contains a notice that the

complainant can provide additional facts to modify the

intake investigator's determination and have the issue

reviewed by the legal department. Petitioner argued

that providing such a review constitutes a process for

"reconsideration" by FCHR that should be available in

his case.

d. Petitioner fails to appreciate the major

differences in the nature of the decision in the

intake case, that it was merely an initial

determination by an intake investigator based on

preliminary fact-finding. The Recommended Order

entered in Petitioner's previous case before DOAH, in

which the fact that his voluntary dismissal had been

knowingly and voluntarily submitted, was determined by

an ALJ in an open hearing and that determination was

later reviewed by a panel of commissioners, who then

issued the Final Order. Petitioner was informed of

his proper remedy, appeal to the appropriate district

court of appeal, in the Final Order. Petitioner has

timely filed his Notice of Appeal.

e. Petitioner also argued that FCHR provided a

"reconsideration" in two of its previous cases,

thereby precluding it from not accepting Petitioner's

request for reconsideration. The two cases he cites

involve facts that are clearly distinguished from

being applicable in the instant case (as discussed in

paragraphs f and g below) and further support FCHR's

determination not to provide for reconsideration of

its Final Orders. The law is clear that FCHR's Final

Orders may be directly appealed to the appropriate

district court of appeal.

f. In Youngs v. Toucan's Restaurant , Case

No. 03-2457 (DOAH December 4, 2003, FCHR Case No.

21-00425), a FCHR panel reviewed an exception made by

Petitioner arguing that "new evidence" should be taken

on review of the Recommended Order of the ALJ. The

panel determined that, although not provided in the

"Uniform Rules of Administrative Procedure," a motion

to remand to take new evidence could be considered by

the panel. The panel considered the motion, construed

it under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.540, found

it to be lacking and denied the motion (FCHR Final

Order No. 04-116 dated September 22, 2004).

g. In Bamawo v. Department of Corrections , Case

No. 02-3786 (DOAH September 13, 2003, FCHR Case No.

21-02010), a FCHR panel heard a motion by a petitioner

to reopen his determination hearing (reviewing his

Exceptions to the Recommended Order of an ALJ), since

he was prevented from appearing (by telephone) by

agents of the respondent. The panel recognized that

the petitioner was prevented by the local prison

officials from appearing by telephone in his case.

The panel did allow him to present his Exceptions and

the Department of Corrections to rebut them, and

proceeded to approve its initial determination to

dismiss (FCHR Final Order No. 05-120 dated June 30,

2004).

h. Petitioner also fails to point out the fact

that he was informed that FCHR at one time did have a

rule for reconsideration in employment cases that was

found to be confusing, misleading, and ineffective.

It was repealed in 2000 in order to give adversely-

affected parties a clear and immediate path to

appellate review.

AS TO DOAH CASE NO. 05-1211RU

4. Petitioner stated that FCHR did not provide him with

the standards to be used to determine "intent to dwell." In

addition to being deficient in both form and substance, as set

forth in paragraph 2 above, the Petition is also dismissed for

the following additional reasons. Adding to his Petition filed

on April 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a "Notice of Arguments" on

April 14, 2005, pursuant to the Order dated April 11, 2005. The

arguments consisted of the statements made in his Petition.

a. As stated by FCHR's attorney during the

telephonic hearing, FCHR gathers, during its

investigation, the facts of a case from interviews,

diaries of events, and other written statements

provided by the parties and their witnesses in order

to determine the facts relevant to a determination. A

complainant is permitted to provide any information

which he considers relevant to the complaint filed

with FCHR. FCHR does not prejudge what facts are

necessary, nor does it exclude any statements or facts

provided. Upon establishing the facts of the case,

based on the evidence provided or uncovered during its

investigation, FCHR then applies the relevant legal

standards to determine if, in fact, it has

jurisdiction and whether there is reasonable cause to

believe that an unlawful act of discrimination has

occurred. The application of those standards is noted

in the final determination.

AS TO DOAH CASE NO. 05-1219RU

5. Petitioner stated that FCHR did not have the authority

to dismiss his case based on the fact that he dismissed his case

at DOAH, because Petitioner had determined that "it was illegal

and DOAH did not have jurisdiction over the case." In addition

to being deficient in both form and substance, as set forth in

paragraph 2 above, the Petition is also dismissed for the

following reasons. Adding to this Motion for Rule Challenge

Proceeding filed on April 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a "Notice of

Arguments" on April 14, 2005, pursuant to the Order dated

April 11, 2005. The argument consisted of the statements made

in his motion, which are both frivolous and have no basis in law

or fact. The statements made by Petitioner are merely his

opinion and belief. Petitioner has failed to cite any statute

or case law to support his belief.

AS TO DOAH CASE NO. 05-1462RU

6. Petitioner stated in his Petition filed on April 19,

2005, that FCHR entered its Determination of "No Jurisdiction"

without following the proper procedures. In addition to being

deficient in both form and substance, as set forth in

paragraph 2 above, the Petition is also dismissed for the

following additional reasons. Petitioner stated that FCHR

"reached a determination without doing an investigation." The

statements made in his motion are both frivolous and have no

basis in law or fact. FCHR issued its determination and

detailed the results of its investigation resulting in its

Finding of Facts and Law upon which it determined it had no

jurisdiction.

AS TO DOAH CASE NO. 05-1664RU

7. Petitioner stated in his Petition filed on May 10,

2005, that FCHR has denied his request for hearing. In addition

to being deficient in both form and substance, as set forth in

paragraph 2 above, the Petition is also dismissed for the

following additional reasons. He has documented no evidence

that he requested a hearing under Subsection 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (2004), or that he has shown the necessary elements for

such a request.

a. Petitioner states "any party entitled to a

hearing may demand that one be held even after the

agency seemingly has taken final action [and cites]

Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. State, Department of

Transportation , 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)."

Capeletti Brothers is not applicable to the facts in

this case, because FCHR did not take any final action

without a hearing. A determination by FCHR is a

preliminary order from which a complainant may seek

relief by filing a petition for a formal hearing to be

conducted by DOAH, pursuant to Subsection

760.35(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2004). In this case,

Petitioner filed such a petition, the case was

transferred to DOAH, was granted a hearing, and later

Petitioner withdrew his Petition before a ruling was

made on the merits.

AS TO DOAH CASE NO. 05-2050RU

8. Petitioner stated in his Petition filed on June 5,

2005, that FCHR should withdraw its Final Order and correct it

for errors. In addition to being deficient in both form and

substance, as set forth in paragraph 2 above, the Petition is

also dismissed for the following additional reasons. Petitioner

states FCHR should not "waste the tax payers [sic] money to

argue their abuse of authority and lack of following the proper

procedure in a host of Rule Challenge Proceedings and numerous

hearings on disputed facts that Petitioner is legally entitled

to, when they have the authority to simply correct the problem."

This motion is clearly frivolous and made for improper purpose.

It is also noted that Petitioner requested dismissal of this

Petition in a motion filed on October 18, 2005.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Motion (Petition) for Rule Challenge

Proceedings in Case Nos. 05-0966RU, 05-1211RU, 05-1219RU,

05-1462RU, 05-1664RU, and 05-2050RU are dismissed with

prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of March, 2006, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DANIEL M. KILBRIDE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 27th day of March, 2006.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Frank M. Bafford, Sr.

9622 Theresa Drive

Thonotosassa, Florida 33592

William J. Tait, Jr., Esquire

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4830

Cecil Howard, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-4830

Scott Boyd, Executive Director

and General Counsel

Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

120 Holland Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

Liz Cloud, Program Administrator

Bureau of Administrative Code

Department of State

R.A. Gray Building, Suite 101

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled

to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes.

Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original

Notice of Appeal with the agency Clerk of the Division of

Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees

prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First

District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate

District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be

filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.