ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The above appeal was filed with the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) on August 25, 1999. On October 11,
1999, the Division sent an Order Governing Procedure to the parties setting forth the appeal process according to the rules
of the Division and the proper dates by which filings needed to be made by the parties. At that time, the Appellant, Michael
S. Change, was represented by attorney Lourie A. Salley, III.
On October 20, 1999, the Division received a Motion to Withdraw as counsel from the Appellant's attorney. His motion
was based on the grounds that the Appellant failed to pay requested attorney's fees or to respond by phone or in writing to
any written requests. The Certificate of Service accompanying Mr. Salley's motion indicated that the Appellant was served
with the Motion to Withdraw via U.S. Mail on October 20, 1999.
On November 2, 1999, the Division signed and issued to the Appellant, via certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested, an
Order relieving Mr. Salley of defending the Appellant.(1) The Appellant was also informed by an additional letter in that
mailing that his brief in this matter was past due. The letter granted the Appellant ten additional days in which to contact the
Division, by way of either written or verbal communication, of his intentions in this matter. This office received Mr.
Change's signed return receipt on November 22, 1999. However, the Appellant has not requested an extension or
enlargement of time, but rather has been unresponsive to all communications as of the date of this Order.
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Rules of Procedure for the Administrative Law Judge Division, a Motion to Dismiss this appeal
was filed by the Respondent on December 14, 1999. That rule, entitled "Dismissal of Appeal for Failure to Comply with the
Rules," sets forth:
Upon motion of any party, or on its own motion, an administrative law judge may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply
with any of the rules of procedure for appeals, including the failure to comply with any of the time limits provided by this
section.
(Emphasis added) (1997). "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). Therefore, finding
good cause,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
December 14, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina
Page 2 of 2
1. The Respondent was also served with the Order and letter via regular U.S. Mail. |
