On July 8, ALJ Karlene Turrentine issued an order formally denying my Rule 60(b) motion and my motion to strike DOJ’s unauthorized June 12 filing—without citing a single rule, case, or factual correction. She claimed I “failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” ignoring every legal argument I raised and failing to engage with even the most basic due process issues I documented. She also dismissed my motion to strike without acknowledging the jurisdictional problem: that DOJ cannot lawfully represent an administrative tribunal under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23(a). The order reads like a form letter, devoid of analysis, issued purely to shut the case down—not to address the substance.
This decision was issued after I gave ALJ Turrentine a final opportunity to correct her earlier legal error, in which she claimed Rule 59(e) didn’t apply to administrative rulings—despite clear precedent to the contrary. I warned her that by refusing to rule or correct the record, she risked becoming an official defendant in my federal § 1983 claim. With this denial, that threshold has now been crossed. The record reflects a pattern of retaliatory adjudication, selective rule enforcement, and institutional cover-up—not impartial review. This ruling didn’t close the case—it opened up a new tier of accountability.