ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the undersigned judge based on a Request for a Contested Case
Hearing made by the Petitioner. On October 8, 2003, a Notice and Order Hearing was issued and
mailed to the parties. This Order required that any exhibits to be offered at trial be filed fifteen
days prior to the hearing. This case has been continued several times. The last continuance filed
March 16, 2004 set a trial date of December 1, 2004. This date was selected by the Petitioner to
accommodate his work schedule. The Respondent consented to that date. Under the terms of
the Notice And Order of Continuance and Hearing, all other terms of the original Notice and
Order for Hearing remained in effect. The Respondent has filed its evidence exchange as
required. The Petitioner has not.
In addition, the Respondent indicates that mail sent to the Petitioner has been returned as
“unable to forward.” The court attempted to reach the Petitioner by telephone at the home and
cell phone numbers previously provided by the Petitioner. The home telephone had been
disconnected and the cell phone voice mail had a different name than the Petitioner’s. The
Respondent stated that the Petitioner’s former employer has indicated that the Petitioner has
moved to Florida. The Petitioner has not corresponded in writing with the Court since October
2003. The last contact was in March 2004 to set the December hearing date.
“The administrative law judge may dismiss a contested case...adverse to the defaulting
party. A default occurs when a party fails to plead or otherwise prosecute or defend,...or fails to
comply with an interlocutory order of the administrative law judge.” ALJD Rule 23.
It appearing that the Petitioner has defaulted in this matter, this case is hereby
DISMISSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
South Carolina Administrative Law Judge
November 30, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
