An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-19
Filed 20 May 2026
Richmond County, No. 24CVS000748-760
IN THE MATTER OF
THE RICHMOND COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES
Appeal by respondents from order entered 11 September 2024 by Judge
Stephan R. Futrell in Richmond County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of
Appeals 12 August 2025.
McGuirewoods LLP, by Henry L. Kitchin, Jr., Jonathan Y. Ellis, and Armina A. Manning, and Van Camp, Meacham & Newman, PLLC, by Michael J. Newman, for respondents-appellants.
N.C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., by Elizabeth Hopkins Thomas, Lee Matthew Pollack, and Cheryl A. Sullivan, for the Superior Court of Richmond County.
GORE, Judge.
Respondents Richmond County, Jeff Smart, Justin Dawkins, Rick Watkins,
Andy Grooms, Toni Maples, Jason Gainey, Robin Roberts, and Bryan Land, seek
interlocutory appeal of an order appointing the Honorable G. Bryan Collins, Resident
Superior Court Judge, to preside over the matter. Upon review of the motion to
dismiss, the petition for writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition, and the record, we IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
Opinion of the Court
deny the motion to dismiss the interlocutory appeal, we deny the petitions as moot,
and we vacate and remand.
Respondents seek appeal of the order entered 11 September 2024 in which the
Honorable Stephan R. Futrell, the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge of
Richmond County, Judicial District 21, assigned the present case involving the
Richmond County Jail Facilities to the Honorable G. Bryan Collins, Resident
Superior Court Judge of the 10th Judicial District, to preside over all matters
involved in the case. Within the order, Judge Futrell found that Judge Collins was
assigned for six months to hear matters in the 21st Judicial District pursuant to the
Chief Justice’s 2025 Master Calendar.
Briefly, this case arises from the sua sponte and ex parte order entered by
Judge Futrell initiating the Richmond County Grand Jury’s inspection of the
Richmond County Jail pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-628(a)(5). The trial court cited its
inherent authority pursuant to In re Alamance Cnty. Ct. Facilities, 329 N.C. 84
(1991), and Ragan v. Cnty. of Alamance, 330 N.C. 110 (1991), to require adequate
facilities from the county commissioners. The grand jury inspected the jail and
submitted its findings to the court.
The trial court also appointed counsel from the North Carolina Prison Legal
Services to represent the court, investigate, and present evidence of the Richmond
County Jail’s facilities. The trial court stated it would conduct hearings “to determine
whether the Richmond County Commissioners and County Manager have acted
-2- IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
capriciously or arbitrarily, in bad faith or in disregard of the law, and whether th[e]
[c]ourt should compel action in good faith in accord with the law, in connection with
the provision of adequate local confinement facilities.” The trial court instructed
service of the Order and attachments upon the county commissioners, the county
manager, and Richmond County.
Upon service of the Order and attachments, counsel for respondents entered a
notice of appearance. On 11 September 2024, Judge Futrell entered another order
stating, “the appointment of an appropriate superior court judge to preside over all
proceedings [was] reasonably necessary for proper administration of justice.”
Accordingly, Judge Futrell appointed and assigned the case to Judge Collins, after
stating Judge Collins was assigned to the 21st Judicial District in the 2025 Master
Calendar.
On 19 September 2024, respondents moved to designate as exceptional case
pursuant to Rule 2.1(a) of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District
Courts and simultaneously moved to disqualify and recuse Judge Futrell. On 25
September 2024, respondents noticed appeal of the 11 September 2024 Order.
Respondents seek interlocutory appeal arguing it affects a substantial right or
alternatively, they petition for writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition. Respondents
state the issue is “whether a trial court possesses inherent authority to permanently
and sua sponte appoint a judge from anywhere in the State to preside over any and
all proceedings in a matter before it.” As all parties recognize, there is generally no
-3- IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders apart from a Rule 54(b)
certification, or when the order affects a substantial right that will be lost if not
immediately reviewed. Turner v. Norfolk S. Corp., 137 N.C. App. 138, 141 (2000).
Respondents argue the appeal implicates a substantial right. Specifically, they
argue Judge Collins lacks authority to preside over this matter, and secondly, waiting
to decide this case “would foreclose all meaningful judicial review of the question.”
They also state that this matter could take several years before a final order is
entered, and by then “Richmond County will have endured the full effect of the
injuries caused by being forced to litigate a proceeding presided over by a judicial
officer who lacks legal authority to preside over the matter.”
The trial court found that Judge Collins was assigned to the 21st Judicial
District in 2025. See generally, Vance Constr. Co. v. Duane White Land Corp., 127
N.C. App. 493, 495 (1997) (cleaned up) (“We take judicial notice of the fact that the
Chief Justice by order assigns resident or regular judges of the superior courts to
various counties or judicial districts as they appear on the master calendar.”). But
see id. (“Because Judge Brown had no commission from the Chief Justice or other
authorization to hold a session of superior court in Warren County or District 9 during
the week plaintiff’s motion was heard, the order entered is void.”). Because there are
explicit statutory directives for assigning superior court judges to other districts, we
determine this case affects a substantial right and grant interlocutory appeal.
Respondents argue only the Chief Justice has statutory authority to assign a
-4- IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
superior court judge to reside in a particular court and hear the entirety of a
particular case. We agree.
The North Carolina Constitution granted authority to the Chief Justice to
assign superior court judges to various districts. N.C. Const. art. IV, § 11; see
N.C.G.S. § 7A-47.3 (2024). The authority and jurisdiction of superior court judges is
limited to the assigned district or place the judge ordinarily resides. Vance Const.
Co., 127 N.C. App. at 495. A superior court judge has limited authority to refer a
motion to another resident superior court judge who regularly holds court in the
district or set of districts, and the designated judge has authority for that motion, but
we are unaware of any statutory authority for a superior court judge to designate a
judge to specially preside over the entirety of a case. N.C.G.S. § 7A-49.1 (2024). When
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-19
Filed 20 May 2026
Richmond County, No. 24CVS000748-760
IN THE MATTER OF
THE RICHMOND COUNTY JAIL FACILITIES
Appeal by respondents from order entered 11 September 2024 by Judge
Stephan R. Futrell in Richmond County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of
Appeals 12 August 2025.
McGuirewoods LLP, by Henry L. Kitchin, Jr., Jonathan Y. Ellis, and Armina A. Manning, and Van Camp, Meacham & Newman, PLLC, by Michael J. Newman, for respondents-appellants.
N.C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., by Elizabeth Hopkins Thomas, Lee Matthew Pollack, and Cheryl A. Sullivan, for the Superior Court of Richmond County.
GORE, Judge.
Respondents Richmond County, Jeff Smart, Justin Dawkins, Rick Watkins,
Andy Grooms, Toni Maples, Jason Gainey, Robin Roberts, and Bryan Land, seek
interlocutory appeal of an order appointing the Honorable G. Bryan Collins, Resident
Superior Court Judge, to preside over the matter. Upon review of the motion to
dismiss, the petition for writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition, and the record, we IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
Opinion of the Court
deny the motion to dismiss the interlocutory appeal, we deny the petitions as moot,
and we vacate and remand.
Respondents seek appeal of the order entered 11 September 2024 in which the
Honorable Stephan R. Futrell, the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge of
Richmond County, Judicial District 21, assigned the present case involving the
Richmond County Jail Facilities to the Honorable G. Bryan Collins, Resident
Superior Court Judge of the 10th Judicial District, to preside over all matters
involved in the case. Within the order, Judge Futrell found that Judge Collins was
assigned for six months to hear matters in the 21st Judicial District pursuant to the
Chief Justice’s 2025 Master Calendar.
Briefly, this case arises from the sua sponte and ex parte order entered by
Judge Futrell initiating the Richmond County Grand Jury’s inspection of the
Richmond County Jail pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-628(a)(5). The trial court cited its
inherent authority pursuant to In re Alamance Cnty. Ct. Facilities, 329 N.C. 84
(1991), and Ragan v. Cnty. of Alamance, 330 N.C. 110 (1991), to require adequate
facilities from the county commissioners. The grand jury inspected the jail and
submitted its findings to the court.
The trial court also appointed counsel from the North Carolina Prison Legal
Services to represent the court, investigate, and present evidence of the Richmond
County Jail’s facilities. The trial court stated it would conduct hearings “to determine
whether the Richmond County Commissioners and County Manager have acted
-2- IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
capriciously or arbitrarily, in bad faith or in disregard of the law, and whether th[e]
[c]ourt should compel action in good faith in accord with the law, in connection with
the provision of adequate local confinement facilities.” The trial court instructed
service of the Order and attachments upon the county commissioners, the county
manager, and Richmond County.
Upon service of the Order and attachments, counsel for respondents entered a
notice of appearance. On 11 September 2024, Judge Futrell entered another order
stating, “the appointment of an appropriate superior court judge to preside over all
proceedings [was] reasonably necessary for proper administration of justice.”
Accordingly, Judge Futrell appointed and assigned the case to Judge Collins, after
stating Judge Collins was assigned to the 21st Judicial District in the 2025 Master
Calendar.
On 19 September 2024, respondents moved to designate as exceptional case
pursuant to Rule 2.1(a) of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District
Courts and simultaneously moved to disqualify and recuse Judge Futrell. On 25
September 2024, respondents noticed appeal of the 11 September 2024 Order.
Respondents seek interlocutory appeal arguing it affects a substantial right or
alternatively, they petition for writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition. Respondents
state the issue is “whether a trial court possesses inherent authority to permanently
and sua sponte appoint a judge from anywhere in the State to preside over any and
all proceedings in a matter before it.” As all parties recognize, there is generally no
-3- IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders apart from a Rule 54(b)
certification, or when the order affects a substantial right that will be lost if not
immediately reviewed. Turner v. Norfolk S. Corp., 137 N.C. App. 138, 141 (2000).
Respondents argue the appeal implicates a substantial right. Specifically, they
argue Judge Collins lacks authority to preside over this matter, and secondly, waiting
to decide this case “would foreclose all meaningful judicial review of the question.”
They also state that this matter could take several years before a final order is
entered, and by then “Richmond County will have endured the full effect of the
injuries caused by being forced to litigate a proceeding presided over by a judicial
officer who lacks legal authority to preside over the matter.”
The trial court found that Judge Collins was assigned to the 21st Judicial
District in 2025. See generally, Vance Constr. Co. v. Duane White Land Corp., 127
N.C. App. 493, 495 (1997) (cleaned up) (“We take judicial notice of the fact that the
Chief Justice by order assigns resident or regular judges of the superior courts to
various counties or judicial districts as they appear on the master calendar.”). But
see id. (“Because Judge Brown had no commission from the Chief Justice or other
authorization to hold a session of superior court in Warren County or District 9 during
the week plaintiff’s motion was heard, the order entered is void.”). Because there are
explicit statutory directives for assigning superior court judges to other districts, we
determine this case affects a substantial right and grant interlocutory appeal.
Respondents argue only the Chief Justice has statutory authority to assign a
-4- IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
superior court judge to reside in a particular court and hear the entirety of a
particular case. We agree.
The North Carolina Constitution granted authority to the Chief Justice to
assign superior court judges to various districts. N.C. Const. art. IV, § 11; see
N.C.G.S. § 7A-47.3 (2024). The authority and jurisdiction of superior court judges is
limited to the assigned district or place the judge ordinarily resides. Vance Const.
Co., 127 N.C. App. at 495. A superior court judge has limited authority to refer a
motion to another resident superior court judge who regularly holds court in the
district or set of districts, and the designated judge has authority for that motion, but
we are unaware of any statutory authority for a superior court judge to designate a
judge to specially preside over the entirety of a case. N.C.G.S. § 7A-49.1 (2024). When
a case is considered “exceptional,” the Chief Justice may assign a specific superior
court judge to hear the entire case. N.C. Super. Ct. Dist. Ct. R. 2.1. While the
superior court judges may recommend a case be designated exceptional to the Chief
Justice, it is the Chief Justice who holds the authority to ultimately make the
assignment over a specific case. Id.
In the present case, Judge Futrell’s order exercised authority beyond his
jurisdiction. See State v. Brice, 370 N.C. 244, 251 (2017) (cleaned up) (“Where
jurisdiction is statutory and the Legislature requires the Court to exercise its
jurisdiction in a certain manner, to follow a certain procedure, or otherwise subjects
the Court to certain limitations, an act of the Court beyond these limits is in excess
-5- IN RE: THE RICHMOND CNTY. JAIL FACILITIES
of its jurisdiction.”). Although Judge Collins was assigned to the Richmond County
district for a portion of 2025, the order was entered in 2024 and assigned Judge
Collins to preside over the entirety of the case. Because this contravenes the explicit
statutory mandate for who may assign superior court judges to a district and
contravenes Rule 2.1 by which the superior courts are bound, we must vacate and
remand.
Upon remand, Judge Futrell may proceed under Rule 2.1 and request the Chief
Justice designate the present case as exceptional. Judge Futrell may provide
recommendations of judges along with reasons for such recommendations pursuant
to Rule 2.1. But it is only within the Chief Justice’s authority to assign a certain
superior court judge to preside over the entirety of the case.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny the motion to dismiss the interlocutory
appeal, and upon review we vacate and remand. We deny the petitions for writ of
certiorari and writ of prohibition as moot.
VACATE AND REMAND.
Judges GRIFFIN and STADING concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-6-