ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC” or “Court”) pursuant to a request for a contested case hearing filed by Marvin B. Harrison (“Petitioner”) on June 25, 2007 regarding the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division’s (“SLED” or “Respondent”) denial of his Armed Security Registration. On August 24, 2007, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss this matter, asserting that Petitioner failed to filed his request for a contested case hearing with the Court within thirty (30) days of receipt of SLED’s decision to deny his Armed Security Registration. A hearing was held before the Court in Columbia, South Carolina on August 28, 2007. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.
DISCUSSION
The basis for the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter due to the Petitioner’s untimely filing of his request for a contested case hearing. All requests for a contested case hearing before the Court must be filed in accordance with the Court’s rules of procedure. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(C). Under Rule 11(C) of the Rules of Procedure for the Administrative Law Court, “. . . a request [for a contested case hearing] must be filed and served within thirty (30) days after actual or constructive notice of the agency’s determination... .”
On January 25, 2007, Petitioner filed an application for an Armed Security Registration with SLED. By letter dated April 10, 2007, SLED denied Petitioner’s application. In the letter, SLED notified Petitioner that if he wished to appeal the denial, he must do so within thirty (30) days of receipt of the letter. Further, SLED included instructions on the procedure to file a request for a contested case hearing with the ALC.
Petitioner acknowledged that he received SLED’s denial letter dated April 10, 2007and that he did not file his request for a contested case hearing until June 25, 2007, well in excess of thirty (30) days of receipt of the letter. Petitioner asserted that he did not timely file because he did not have sufficient funds to pay the required filing fee. However, Petitioner did not make any contact with the Court, either verbal or written, to inquire about obtaining a waiver of the filing fee.
This Court has no authority to expand the time in which the request for a hearing must be filed. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985) (applying appellate court rules and finding lack of jurisdiction for failure to serve a notice of intent to appeal in a timely manner); see also Burnette v. S.C. State Highway Dep’t, 252 S.C. 568, 167 S.E. 2d 571 (1969) (holding that a court does not have the authority to extend the time for taking an appeal from a decision of an administrative agency.) In this case, SLED issued its denial letter on April 10, 2007, and although Petitioner acknowledged timely receipt of the letter, he did not file his request for a contested case hearing until June 25, 2007, well in excess of thirty (30) days of receipt of the letter. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and that this matter is dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
September 4, 2007 Marvin F. Kittrell
Columbia, South Carolina Chief Administrative Law Judge |
