Waters v. State of N.C. Jud'l Standards Comm'n

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 25-492
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Judge John Arrowood

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA 25-492

Filed 18 February 2026

North Carolina Industrial Commission, No. TA-31082

TERESA LANE WATERS, Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION, Defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 5 December 2024 for the Full

Commission by Chairman Phillip A. Baddour, III in the North Carolina Industrial

Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January 2026.

Teresa Lane Waters, pro se plaintiff-appellant.

Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Ashley Weathers, for defendant-appellee.

ARROWOOD, Judge.

Teresa Lane Waters (“plaintiff”) appeals from an order by the North Carolina

Industrial Commission (“Commission”) dismissing her claim against the North

Carolina Judicial Standards Commission (“JSC”). For the following reasons, we

affirm the order. WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

Opinion of the Court

I. Background

On 15 August 2023, plaintiff filed a claim for damages under the Tort Claims

Act (“TCA”) with the Commission. The claim named JSC as the defendant and

alleged $1,000,000.00 in damages by reason of the negligent conduct of JSC Executive

Director Brittany Pinkham. Plaintiff’s affidavit alleged that her injury giving rise to

the claim occurred around 11 August 2020 at the “Union County District Attorney

Office and/or Union County Detention Center.”

In describing how her injury occurred, plaintiff wrote:

Brittany Pinkham notified [plaintiff] that she could not file and/or barred complaints from [plaintiff] from filing complaints of Judicial Judges of N.C. on the date of April 17, 2023, under United States Postal Mail Service. On August 11, 2020, Union County Detention Center placed [plaintiff under] arrest for cyberstalking of witness “Willie Richard Brooks Junior.” [Plaintiff] suffered false imprisonment, slander, and libel. Union County District Attorney Office neglected to take case number 19CR050270 to trial, cause witness does not wish to proceed.

Plaintiff further alleged that Executive Director Pinkham neglected to investigate

plaintiff’s injuries and damages, thereby not meeting her duty of care and causing

plaintiff to suffer injuries, false imprisonment, slander and libel. Plaintiff’s original

affidavit contained no other factual allegations in support of her claim.

Attached to the affidavit was Executive Director Pinkham’s letter to plaintiff

dated 17 April 2023. The letter explained that the JSC met and reviewed plaintiff’s

complaints and the additional information she had submitted against the judges

-2- WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

involved in her Union County civil litigation. JSC found that plaintiff had “abused

the [JSC’s] complaint process through ongoing and excessive filings of information

that repeat information already reviewed and dismissed by the [JSC].” Accordingly,

pursuant to Rule 9(f) of JSC’s rules, JSC ordered that plaintiff was barred from filing

further complaints or correspondence relating to her civil litigation. See Rules of the

N.C. Jud. Standards Comm’n, Rule 9(f) (Abuse of the Complaint Process).

JSC moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claim on 28 September 2023. JSC provided

four grounds for dismissal. First, JSC alleged that plaintiff’s claims were barred by

res judicata because plaintiff had previously filed two State Tort Claims arising from

the same facts and occurrences. Second, JSC alleged that plaintiff failed to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted because the facts in the allegations were not

sufficient to establish negligence on the part of JSC. Third, JSC claimed that the

Commission lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims because the Union County

District Attorney’s Office and the Union County Detention Center are not state

agencies for the purpose of the TCA. Additionally, much of plaintiff’s claim alleged

intentional torts which do not fall under the TCA. Lastly, JSC alleged that plaintiff’s

claim was barred by statute of limitations.

On 7 October 2023, plaintiff served JSC with a “First Set of Interrogatories

and Request for Production of Documents for Defendant.” JSC moved to stay

discovery on 16 November 2023. That same day, plaintiff responded and Deputy

Commissioner Hullender granted JSC’s motion to stay discovery pending disposition

-3- WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

of the proceedings. Plaintiff then filed several additional documents and motions

including a motion of clarification asking JSC’s counsel to clarify who they

represented.

A pre-trial conference before Deputy Commissioner Hullender was held on

11 December 2023. There, plaintiff responded to JSC’s motion to dismiss and

explained that she brought her claim because “she felt there was a deep injustice”

due to JSC barring her from bringing further complaints. JSC also responded to

plaintiff’s various motions and requested that the Commission impose a gatekeeping

order against plaintiff pursuant to Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil

Procedure. JSC explained that plaintiff had filed numerous irrelevant documents

and continuously filed documents in this case and other lawsuits outside of the

Commission’s jurisdiction.

On 13 December 2023, Deputy Commissioner Hullender issued an Order

denying plaintiff’s request for a continuance and dismissing plaintiff’s claim with

prejudice. Deputy Commissioner Hullender concluded that plaintiff failed to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted because plaintiff “had not stated the specific

acts of negligence allegedly committed by any officer, employee, involuntary servant,

or agent of the State of North Carolina which proximately caused her any injury or

damage.” Additionally, Deputy Commissioner Hullender found that the Commission

lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff named attorneys that are

not employees of the State for purposes of the TCA and alleged intentional torts which

-4- WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

fall outside of the scope of the TCA. The Order did not address any of the other

pending motions due to the dismissal of the claim.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Full Commission on 18 December 2023.

On 5 December 2024, the Full Commission issued an Order by Chairman Phillip A.

Baddour, III finding that Deputy Commissioner Hullender did not err in granting

JSC’s Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, the Full

Commission granted JSC’s request for a Gatekeeping Order after finding that

plaintiff “engaged in a pattern of flooding the Industrial Commission with a deluge

of meritless claims as well as irrelevant and vexatious filings in each of her claims.”

The Full Commission also reviewed and denied all motions before them filed by

plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed notice of appeal to this Court on 13 January 2025. On

26 March 2025, plaintiff filed a proposed record on appeal. JSC objected to the

proposed record on 25 April 2025. Plaintiff filed a response to JSC’s objections and

requested a judicial settlement conference for the record on appeal on 2 May 2025.

Plaintiff asked to have the settlement conference in person because she did not have

Microsoft Teams or a strong phone signal. On 7 May 2025, Commissioner James C.

Gillen issued an order denying plaintiff’s motion for conference to settle the record

and sustaining all of JSC’s objections to the record. Thus, Commissioner Gillen

ordered that the record was settled in accordance with JSC’s 25 April 2025 objections.

II. Discussion

-5- WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal: 1) whether Commissioner Gillen erred

in Order filed on 7 May 2025; 2) whether the Full Commission erred in Order filed on

5 December 2024; and 3) whether Commissioner Hullender erred in Order filed

13 December 2023. We consider each issue in turn.

A. Standard of Review

Review of appeals from the Industrial Commission “shall be for errors of law

only under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil

actions[.]” N.C.G.S. § 143-293 (2025). The standard of review for motions to dismiss

for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is de novo. See

Estate of Stephens v. ADP TotalSource DE IV, Inc., 288 N.C. App. 208, 213 (2023).

B. 7 May 2025 Order

As a preliminary matter, we address plaintiff’s argument that Commissioner

Gillen erred in his 7 May 2025 Order settling the record on appeal. Plaintiff argues

that Commissioner Gillen wrongfully denied her request for an in-person settlement

conference and discriminated against her pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12112 because

plaintiff is disabled, indigent, and did not have the software or a strong enough phone

signal to allow her to attend a virtual meeting. Plaintiff also argues that

Commissioner Gillen’s denial of her request violated her due process rights under the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

42 U.S.C. § 12112 is a portion of the American with Disabilities Act that covers

employment and workplace discrimination. Thus, it is inapplicable to the

-6- WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

discrimination alleged by plaintiff. As to her due process argument, plaintiff does not

explain how her due process rights were violated and we find nothing in the record

supporting her argument. Notably, though not in person, plaintiff had the

opportunity to be heard on the issue when she filed her response to JSC’s objections

to the proposed record on appeal. Plaintiff offers no other authority requiring

Commissioner Gillen to hold an in-person settlement conference. Accordingly, we

find no error in Commissioner Gillen’s 7 May 2025 Order settling the record on

appeal.

C. 13 December 2023 and 5 December 2024 Orders

Plaintiff contends that Deputy Commissioner Hullender erred in dismissing

her complaint and that the Full Commission erred in affirming Deputy Commissioner

Hullender’s Order. Specifically, plaintiff argues that: 1) she sufficiently stated her

negligence claim; 2) Deputy Commissioner Hullender erred in not addressing her

motion for clarification; and 3) Deputy Commissioner Hullender should not have

stayed discovery.

The TCA operates as a waiver of sovereign immunity and allows citizens to

bring suits against the State for “negligent acts committed by its employees in the

course of their employment.” Cedarbrook Residential Center, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of

Health & Hum. Servs, 383 N.C. 31, 45 (2022) (quoting Teachy v. Coble Diaries, Inc.,

306 N.C. 324, 329 (1982)). Such negligence claims fall under the exclusive jurisdiction

of the Commission which constitutes “a court for the purpose of hearing and passing

-7- WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

upon tort claims against the State Board of Education, the Board of Transportation,

and all other departments, institutions and agencies of the State.” N.C.G.S. § 143-

291(a). Notably, § 143-291(a) does not authorize the Commission to hear claims

directly against counties, county agencies, or their employees. Meyer v. Walls, 347

N.C. 97, 105–08 (1997). Additionally, because the Commission is limited to hearing

negligence claims, intentional tort claims fall outside of their jurisdiction. Williams

v. N.C. Dep’t of Just., Crim. Standards Div., 273 N.C. App. 209, 212–13 (2020) (citing

Fennell v. N.C. Dep’t of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 145 N.C. App. 584, 592 (2001)).

Insofar as it does not conflict with the TCA, the Commission applies the N.C.

Rules of Civil Procedure to TCA claims. N.C.G.S. § 143-300 (2025); Williams, 273

N.C. App. at 212. Dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of

Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted is

appropriate when “(1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the

plaintiff's claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to

make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact that necessarily defeats

the plaintiff's claim.” Cedarbrook Residential Center, Inc., 383 N.C. at 44 (quoting

Wood v. Guilford Cnty., 355 N.C. 161, 166 (2002)). “In reviewing the sufficiency of

claims asserted against state agencies pursuant to the State Tort Claims Act, ‘we

treat [the] plaintiff’s factual allegations contained in his affidavit before the

Industrial Commission as true.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (citing Hunt v. N.C. Dep’t

of Lab., 348 N.C. 192, 194 (1998)).

-8- WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff claiming

negligence “ ‘must show that: (1) [the] defendant failed to exercise due care in the

performance of some legal duty owed to [the] plaintiff under the circumstances; and

(2) the negligent breach of such duty was the proximate cause of the injury.’ ” Id. at

61 (alteration in original) (quoting Bolkhir v. N.C. State Univ., 321 N.C. 706, 706

(1988)). “To prove proximate cause, a plaintiff must show that the injury would not

have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence.” Orsbon for Bosworth-Jones v.

Milazzo, 297 N.C. App. 96, 106 (2024).

Here, many of the allegations in plaintiff’s affidavit fall outside of the

Commission’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered “false imprisonment,

slander, and libel” caused by the Union County District Attorney Office and Union

County Detention Center. False imprisonment, slander, and libel are intentional

torts, which the Commission does not have the authority to review. Moreover, the

Union County District Attorney Office and the Union County Detention Center are

county offices that fall outside of the purview of the TCA. Thus, the Commission

lacks jurisdiction over any of plaintiff’s claims against the Union County officials or

alleging false imprisonment, slander, and libel.

Additionally, plaintiff’s remaining allegations in the affidavit are not sufficient

to state a negligence claim. Plaintiff does not specifically allege that Executive

Director Pinkham or the JSC owed her a duty of care. Rather, plaintiff merely states

that Executive Director Pinkham barred her from filing complaints with the JSC and

-9- WATERS V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

that she was negligent. Furthermore, plaintiff alleged no injuries caused by the JSC

barring her complaints. The only injury named in the affidavit was the suffering of

false imprisonment, slander, and libel which the JSC could not have caused as it

allegedly occurred before the JSC barred plaintiff from making complaints.

Accordingly, “the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make

a good claim” and Deputy Commissioner Hullender did not err by dismissing

plaintiff’s claim. Because we conclude that plaintiff’s affidavit failed to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted, we need not reach the issues of plaintiff’s

subsequent motions before Deputy Commissioner Hullender.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the North Carolina Industrial

Commission’s Order dismissing plaintiff’s claim.

AFFIRMED.

Judges ZACHARY and WOOD concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

- 10 -