Opinion
22-ALJ-22-0047-AP
05-24-2022
James O. Campbell, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce and Midlands Neurology & Pain Associates, PA, Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge
This matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC or court) on the appeal of James O. Campbell (Appellant) filed on February 12, 2022. The Appellant is seeking judicial review of the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (Respondent or Department) Appellate Panel's decision modifying the Appeal Tribunal's decision and finding the Appellant disqualified from receiving benefits for eight weeks, with a corresponding monetary reduction in the maximum potential benefit amount, upon finding he was discharged for cause connected with the employment. On February 8, 2022, the court sent the Appellant a Memorandum informing him that his request for an appeal was incomplete and that his case would not be assigned until the court received a proof of service showing that the request was sent to all a parties, with a proof of service form enclosed. On February 12, 2022, the court received the requested document. The Appellant's appeal was assigned to the undersigned judge and a Notice of Assignment, which included filing deadlines the parties are required to meet were mailed to the parties.
DISCUSSION
On March 9, 2022, the Department filed the Record on Appeal (ROA) with the court and in accordance with ALC Rule 37, the Appellant was required to file and serve his brief on all parties within twenty (20) days after the filing of the ROA. On April 20, 2022, the Department and Employer filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File and Serve Appellant's & Brief. On April 28, 2022, the Appellant filed a response to the Respondents Motion to Dismiss asking the court not to dismiss his case because he did not understand the requirement of the Appellant's brief he was supposed to send in. The Appellant's response did not include his brief, or proof of service that he had served his response on the Department or the Employer. On May 23, 2022, the court contacted the Department and the Employer to inquire whether either had been served with a copy of the Appellant's response. The Employer had not. The Appellant had mailed the Department's copy to the Appeal Tribunal.
In accordance with ALC Rule 37(A), the Appellant was required to file and serve his brief on all parties within twenty (20) days after the ROA is filed. In this case, the Department filed the Record on Appeal (ROA) on March 9, 2022, therefore the Appellant had until March 29, 2022 to file and serve a copy of his brief on all parties. The Appellant never filed a brief, and while the Appellant filed a response to the Respondents' motion to dismiss with the court, he failed to serve either Respondent. The court recognizes that the Appellant is pro se, however, in South Carolina, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. See State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) ("A pro se litigant who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of the law.") Therefore, pursuant to the Department's motion, this court concludes that this matter must be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.