ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to this tribunal’s Order of May 29, 2003, each party to the above-captioned matter
was required to file a Prehearing Statement with this tribunal and to serve the same on all parties
within twenty days of the date of the order. Respondent South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control filed its Prehearing Statement on July 16, 2003. Petitioner, however, did not
file a Prehearing Statement at that time, but instead, on June 13, 2003, requested an extension of the
time within which to file his Prehearing Statement. By an Order dated June 16, 2003, this extension
was granted and Petitioner was given until July 18, 2003, to file his Prehearing Statement. On July
14, 2003, Petitioner requested a second extension of the time within which to file his Prehearing
Statement. By a letter dated July 22, 2003, this tribunal denied Petitioner’s second request for an
extension and required Petitioner to submit a Prehearing Statement by August 6, 2003. However,
to date, Petitioner has not filed a Prehearing Statement in this matter or otherwise responded to the
July 22, 2003 letter. Therefore, pursuant to ALJD Rule 23, this tribunal finds Petitioner in default
and hereby dismisses this matter.
ALJD Rule 23 provides that:
The administrative law judge may dismiss a contested case or dispose of a contested case
adverse to the defaulting party. A default occurs when a party fails to plead or otherwise
prosecute or defend, fails to appear at a hearing without the proper consent of the judge or
fails to comply with any interlocutory order of the administrative law judge. Any non-defaulting party may move for an order dismissing the case or terminating it adversely to the
defaulting party.
Id. (emphasis added).
By virtue of Petitioner’s request for a contested case, he had an obligation to advance his
position. Nevertheless, Petitioner repeatedly failed to submit a Prehearing Statement in support of
his request for a contested case, despite having been given abundant opportunities to do so. “There
is a limit beyond which the court should not allow a litigant to consume the time of the court . . . .”
Georganne Apparel, Inc. v. Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92, 399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby DISMISSED
with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
August 11, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
