COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Willis and Bray 

Argued at Norfolk, Virginia 

MARVIN PULLEY 

v. Record No. 0180-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

 JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOVEMBER 21, 1995 

 QUALITY and HENRY L. PULLEY 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY 

E. Everett Bagnell, Judge 

 Stephen Merrill for appellant. 

 Karen L. Lebo, Assistant Attorney General 

(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

 No brief or argument for appellee Henry L. Pulley. 

 Acting on the application of Henry L. Pulley, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a Virginia 

Pollution Abatement Permit necessary to the operation of a 

"hog-feeding facility" in Isle of Wight County. Marvin Pulley 

(appellant) appealed this decision to the trial court. DEQ 

demurred to appellant's bill of complaint,1

 arguing that he had 

failed to properly perfect the appeal and lacked the requisite 

"standing" to pursue judicial relief. The trial court sustained 

the demurrer, and appellant appeals to this Court. We affirm the 

trial court on the procedural bar and, therefore, decline to 

address the standing issue. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated 

for publication. 

 1Appellant's bill of complaint is treated as a petition for 

appeal contemplated by Rule 2A:1 et seq.
- 2 - 

 Judicial review of the disputed DEQ decision is governed by 

the Administrative Process Act (APA), Code § 9-6.14:1, et seq.; see

Code § 62.1-44.29. The APA assures to persons or parties otherwise 

qualified to challenge a "case decision" a "right to . . . direct 

review thereof by an appropriate and timely court action . . . in 

the manner provided by the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia." 

 Code § 9-6.14:16(A); see Code § 9-6.14:15. 

 Rule 2A:2 provides that "[a]ny party appealing from a . . . 

case decision shall file, within 30 days after . . . service of the 

final order in the case decision, with the agency secretary a 

notice of appeal signed by him or his counsel." The "term 'agency 

secretary' means the secretary of the agency or . . . executive 

officer . . . ." Rule 2A:1(b). "Within 30 days after . . . filing 

. . . the notice of appeal, the appellant shall file his petition 

for appeal with the clerk of the [appropriate] circuit court" and 

"cause a copy . . . to be served . . . on the agency secretary 

. . . ." Rule 2A:4(a). The "time limit of the rule [2A:4(a)] is 

mandatory." Mayo v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 520, 523, 358 S.E.2d 

759, 761 (1987). 

 Here, it is undisputed that appellant delivered a notice of 

appeal to "a secretary" employed by DEQ at its "regional office" in 

Virginia Beach, Virginia, on August 18, 1994. On September 20, 

1994, appellant instituted the instant cause in the trial court, 

requesting service of the bill of complaint only on "James S. 

Gilmore, Attorney General."2 Thus, neither appellant's notice of 

 

 2This service was quashed by the trial court on November 30, 
- 3 - 

appeal nor attendant complaint and related process were properly 

served on the agency secretary. Moreover, the bill was not filed 

within 30 days following the notice in accordance with Rule 

2A:4(a). 

 The trial court, therefore, correctly ruled that appellant's 

petition was untimely and properly dismissed the appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm its decision. 

 Affirmed. 

 

1994. Appellant first requested service on the proper DEQ official 

on October 24, 1994.