Faith R. Allen v. Department of Human Resource Management ( 2016 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Humphreys, O’Brien and Retired Judge Willis
UNPUBLISHED
FAITH R. ALLEN
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v. Record No. 1467-15-3 PER CURIAM
FEBRUARY 23, 2016
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES AND
CENTRAL VIRGINIA TRAINING CENTER
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AMHERST COUNTY
Michael T. Garrett, Judge
(Joseph R. Sanzone, II; Joseph A. Sanzone; Sanzone & Baker,
L.L.P., on brief), for appellant.
(Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy
Attorney General; Ronald N. Regnery, Senior Assistant Attorney
General; G. William Norris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Liza S.
Simmons, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellees.
Faith R. Allen appeals a decision of the circuit court dismissing her petition for judicial
review of a decision of the Department of Human Resource Management (DHRM). DHRM upheld
a decision of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to issue a Group 3
Written Notice with Termination to Allen. On appeal, Allen contends the circuit court erred by
holding the Administrative Process Act exemptions barred consideration of her appeal and her due
process rights were not violated by the “procedural method employed by the governmental agencies
which denied her the full scope of judicial review guaranteed to her” by the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, and Article 1, § 11 and Article III, § 1 of the Virginia Constitution.

Retired Judge Willis took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant
to Code § 17.1-400(D).

Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
We have reviewed the record and the circuit court’s opinion and order, and we find that
this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the circuit court in
its final opinion and order. See Opinion and Order, CL15009426-00 (Circuit Ct. of Amherst
Cty., Aug. 21, 2015). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument
would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-2-