ORDERS:
ORDER
Petitioner
Gary Chapman (“Chapman”) filed a Motion for Rehearing on November 19, 2007 requesting
reconsideration of the court’s Final Order and Decision filed on October 26,
2007. ALC Rule 29 states that “[a]ny party may move for reconsideration
of a final decision of an administrative law judge in a contested case . . . [w]ithin
ten (10) days after notice of the order concluding the matter . . . .”
Accordingly, Chapman’s motion is untimely.
It is therefore
ORDERED that, not having been timely filed, Chapman’s Motion for Rehearing is dismissed.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
PAIGE J.
GOSSETT
Administrative
Law Judge
December 4, 2007
Columbia, South Carolina
Even if Chapman’s motion were timely, it is not based
upon any of the grounds permitted by Rule 29. Furthermore, his motion attempts
at least in part to raise new issues that are not properly the subject of a
motion for reconsideration. See Commercial Credit Loans, Inc. v.
Riddle, 334 S.C. 176, 186, 512 S.E.2d 123, 129 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding
that a party cannot use a motion to reconsider to raise an issue for the first
time that could have been raised prior to judgment but was not); Patterson
v. Reid, 318 S.C. 183, 185, 456 S.E.2d 436, 437 (Ct. App. 1995) (“A party
cannot for the first time raise an issue by way of a Rule 59(e) motion which
could have been raised at trial.”).
|
