Opinion
22-ALJ-22-0136-AP
07-13-2022
Bruce Wilson, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce and VLS Recovery Services, LLC, Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge
This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or court) on the appeal of Bruce Wilson (Appellant) filed on April 18, 2022. The Appellant is appealing the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (Respondent or Department) Appellate Panel's decision holding him indefinitely disqualified from benefits effective October 24, 2021, upon finding he voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to the employment.
The court mailed the Notice of Assignment, which provided the deadlines the parties are required to meet, to the parties on April 27, 2022. The Department filed the Record on Appeal (ROA) on May 26, 2022. In accordance with ALC Rule 37(A), the Appellant's brief is due within twenty (20) days after the ROA is filed. Therefore, the Appellant was required to file his brief with the court and serve a copy on each party no later than June 15, 2022. On July 1, 2022, pursuant to ALC Rules 37 and 38, the Department filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File and Serve Appellant's Brief. As of the date of this Order, the Appellant has not filed a brief with the court nor a response to the Department's motion to dismiss.
ALC Rule 38 provides that upon a motion by any party, or on its own motion, the court may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedures for appeals, including the failure to comply with any of the time limits provided in the court rules. the Appellant is pro se, in South Carolina, a pro se litigant is responsible "for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of law." State v. Burton, S.C. 259, 265, 589, S.E.2d 6, 9 (2003). Further, by filing an appeal, the Appellant has an obligation to advance a position. There is a limit beyond which the court should 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). By failing to timely file his brief, the Appellant has violated the rules of procedure for this court. Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.