ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to my Order dated September 17, 1999, each party in this contested case was required to file a prehearing
statement with the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) and to serve the same on all parties within fifteen
(l5) days of the date of that Order. The Order for Prehearing Statements (Order) was sent to the Petitioner by way of
certified mail. On October 5, 1999, the Division received the signed Return Receipt, evidencing that the Order was accepted
by the Petitioner. On October 8, 1999, the Division sent a letter to the Petitioner, along with a copy of the Order, by way of
certified and regular U.S. mail, granting her an additional ten (10) days to respond to the Order. The Division has not
received the signed Return Receipt as of the date of this Order, evidencing that the Petitioner failed to claim that mailing.
Furthermore, the letter sent via regular mail was not returned to the Division, and is thereby presumed received.(1) Because
the Petitioner has not responded to this Division's request for a prehearing statement. Pursuant to ALJD Rule 23, this
matter is hereby dismissed. This Rule provides:
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 respond 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.
ALJD Rule 23 (1998) (emphasis added).
By virtue of Petitioner's request for a contested case, she has an obligation to defend her position. Petitioner has not
requested an extension or enlargement of time pursuant to ALJD Rule 3B to comply with this Division's order, but rather has
been unresponsive to all communications. Petitioner has been given abundant opportunity to comply. "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 and the Petitioner is subject to the
penalty or penalties imposed in this matter.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
October 26, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina
1. The Petitioner's address is a post office box. |
