Opinion
Case No. 20070246-CA.
Filed November 8, 2007.
Appeal from the Original Proceeding in this Court.
Randy T. Tippets, Ogden, Petitioner Pro Se.
Brent A. Burnett, Salt Lake City, for Respondent
Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and McHugh.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Randy T. Tippets petitions for review of the Department of Commerce's decision upholding the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing's (DOPL) disciplinary action against Tippets and revoking his license to practice pharmacy and dispense controlled substances. Because Tippets's brief is inadequate under rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, we affirm.
Even giving Tippets some measure of leniency as a pro se litigant, his brief wholly fails to comply with briefing requirements. The critical failures are lack of marshaling and lack of reasoned and supported argument.
A party challenging the factual findings in a decision must marshal the evidence in support of the challenged findings. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). "[W]hen challenging an agency action as not based on substantial evidence, appellants have a duty to marshal all of the evidence supporting the findings and show that despite the supporting facts, the [agency's] findings are not supported by substantial evidence." Road Runner Oil, Inc. v. Board of Oil, Gas Mining, 2003 UT App 275, ¶ 10, 76 P.3d 692. Tippets argues, in essence, that the facts show that the agency's decision was incorrect. However, Tippets fails to marshal the evidence in support of the findings but instead presents his own version of the facts, many not in evidence at the proceeding. Based on his failure to marshal, we do not address Tippets's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence any further and accept the agency's factual determinations. See Martinez v. Media Paymaster Plus, 2007 UT 42, ¶ 19, 164 P.3d 384.
Tippets has also failed to provide a sufficient argument for any issue. "It is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed." State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304 (Utah 1998). Under rule 24, an argument "shall contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented . . . with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). Tippets has not presented reasoned argument, but rather provides only conclusory allegations and facts, many misleadingly stated or beyond the record. Based on the utter lack of reasoned analysis, the briefing is inadequate to reach any issue presented.
Additionally, Tippets has raised issues on appeal that he failed to preserve below. The general rule is that issues not raised in the agency proceeding are considered waived and will not be addressed by a court on review. See Esquivel v. Labor Comm'n, 2000 UT 66, ¶ 34, 7 P.3d 777. Tippets has identified no ground to reach issues not raised below. Therefore, we do not address the issues not preserved in the agency proceeding.
Affirmed.
Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge
James Z. Davis, Judge
Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge