SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to the notice of appeal filed by Appellant Harry T. Walker, appealing a Final Order and Decision from the Office of Motor Vehicles Hearings (OMVH).

The written decision of the OMVH is dated March 17, 2009, and Appellant filed his notice of appeal with the Administrative Law Court on March 25, 2009.  The notice of appeal, however, did not contain a certificate of service.  ALC Rule 33 states the following with regard to service when filing a notice of appeal:

The notice of appeal from the final decision of an agency to be heard by the Administrative Law Court shall be filed with the Court and a copy served on each party and the agency whose final decision is the subject of the appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the decision from which the appeal is taken…. (italics added).

In the case at hand, Appellant has failed to serve the notice of appeal on the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (Department).  Appellant has therefore failed to perfect the appeal as required by ALC Rule 33.  The South Carolina Supreme Court has recently stated:

The requirement of service of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, i.e., if a party misses the deadline, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and has no authority or discretion to ’rescue’ the delinquent party by extending or ignoring the deadline for service of the notice.

Elam v. S.C Department of Transportation, 361 S.C. 9, 15, 602 S.E.2d 772, 775 (2004).

As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.  Furthermore, pursuant to ALC Rule 38, it is within the province of the Court’s authority to dismiss matters “on its own motion …for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for appeals….”

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and that the above captioned matter be and hereby is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.