ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On
May 21, 2008, Respondent South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
(Department) filed a Motion to Dismiss this matter with the Administrative Law
Court (ALC or Court). The Department seeks a dismissal on the grounds that the
Appellant failed to serve the Department with the notice of appeal within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision.
The
Respondent seeks a dismissal under ALC Rule 33. ALC Rule 33 provides that the
Notice of Appeal shall be filed with the Court and “a copy served on each party…within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision from which the appeal is taken.”
By the Appellant’s own admission and as reflected in the Record on Appeal, the
Department was never served with Appellant’s Notice of Appeal.
The
Supreme Court has set forth that a court must dismiss an appeal where the
Appellant fails to serve a party with the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See Southbridge Properties, Inc. v. Jones, 292 S.C. 198, 355 S.E. 2d 535
(1987) (applying appellate court rules and dismissing case for failure to serve
a notice of intent to appeal in a timely manner); 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). Additionally,
it is also well established that a court does not have the authority to extend
the time for taking an appeal from a decision of an administrative agency. See, e.g., id.; Burnette v. S.C. State Highway Dep’t, 252 S.C.
568, 167 S.E. 2d 571 (1969). This tribunal recognizes the harsh result of this
decision but is constrained by the rules and legal precedent in this State. See McClain v. Ingram, 314 S.C. 359, 444 S.E.2d 512 (1994). Nonetheless,
this matter must be dismissed.
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Ralph King
Anderson, III
Administrative
Law Judge
June 3, 2008
Columbia, South Carolina
|
