Document

John Ramsay Walters, M.D.; Decision and Order

Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration On March 17, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to John Rams...

Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration

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]

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).

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; see21 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, search.dca.ca.gov (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]

( printed 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]

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 §  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 §  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.

Footnotes

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).

Back to Citation

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).

Back to Citation

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).

Back to Citation

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 .

Back to Citation

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.

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 2026-19230 Filed 9-18-26; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

Legal Citation

Federal Register Citation

Use this for formal legal and research references to the published document.

91 FR 59797

Web Citation

Suggested Web Citation

Use this when citing the archival web version of the document.

“John Ramsay Walters, M.D.; Decision and Order,” thefederalregister.org (September 21, 2026), https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2026-19230/john-ramsay-walters-m-d-decision-and-order.