Title: Harvey v. Garrett

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FERDELL F. HARVEY,  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
TYRONE GARRETT, Director of 
Wilmington Housing Authority, 
SANDI ROSMINI, YVETTE 
LOGAN, BETTY B. PINKETT, and 
RAVEN Y. EDWARDS, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 196, 2024 
§   
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No.  N24M-03-028 
§                    
§                    
§ 
§                    
§                    
§ 
§                
 
Submitted: May 29, 2024 
Decided: 
June 21, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that:   
(1) 
The appellant, Ferdell F. Harvey, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court Commissioner’s bench ruling that (i) passed on Harvey’s petition for an order 
requiring the Wilmington Housing Authority to comply with the Delaware Freedom 
of Information Act, and (ii) advised Harvey to review 29 Del. C. § 10005 and go to 
the Attorney General’s Office.  Section 10005(b) provides that “a person denied 
access to public records by an administrative office or officer, a department head, 
 
2 
commission, or instrumentality of state government which the Attorney General is 
obliged to represent pursuant to § 2504 of this title must within 60 days of denial, 
present a petition and all supporting documentation to the Chief Deputy as described 
in subsection (e) of this section” and “[t]hereafter, the petitioner or public body the 
Attorney General is otherwise obligated to represent may appeal an adverse decision 
on the record to the Superior Court within 60 days of the Attorney General’s 
decision.”  Section 1005(e) describes how the Attorney General handles a petition 
for determination of whether there has been a violation of the Delaware Freedom of 
Information Act.     
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Harvey to show cause 
why this appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to 
consider an appeal taken directly from a Superior Court Commissioner’s ruling.  In 
his response to the notice to show cause, Harvey states that he is moving forward 
under Superior Court Civil Rule 132.  This rule describes the powers of Superior 
Court Commissioners and the procedures for seeking review of Commissioners’ 
rulings in the Superior Court.  According to the Superior Court docket, a hearing is 
scheduled for July 26, 2024. 
(3) 
The right to review of a Superior Court Commissioner’s ruling is to a 
judge of the Superior Court.1  “In the absence of intermediate review by a Superior 
 
1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(3), (4); Superior Court Administrative Directive 2007-5. 
 
3 
Court judge, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from any action 
taken by a Commissioner.” 2   Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
2 Jagger v. State, 2019 WL 7369200, at *1 (Del. Dec. 30, 2019).