Opinion
No. 278, 2001
Decided: January 31, 2002
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 98C-01-042
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
ALECK J. TAYLOR t/a SOUTHEAST INVESTORS OF DELAWARE SOUTHEAST INVESTORS, INC., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. CAMDEN-WYOMING SEWER AND WATER AUTHORITY and JOHN ROTH, Defendants Below, Appellees. No. 278, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: January 31, 2002
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 98C-01-042
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
Myron T. Steele, Justice:
ORDER
This 31st day of January 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On October 1, 2001, the Assistant Clerk issued a notice to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for the failure of appellant Aleck J. Taylor either to have a Delaware attorney enter an appearance on behalf of Southeast Investors of Delaware and Southeast Investors, Inc. or to inform the Court that those entities would not be taking part in the appeal.
(2) On October 25, 2001, the notice to show cause was returned by the post office to the Clerk's office with the notation "return to sender." No indication was given by the postal service why the mail was returned. On that date, the notice was remailed to Mr. Taylor via first class mail.
(3) On November 29, 2001, the Clerk issued a second notice to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for the failure of Aleck J. Taylor to diligently prosecute the appeal by not filing his opening brief and appendix.
(4) On December 10 and December 11, 2001, Mr. Taylor's identical responses to the Notices to Show Cause were received in the Clerk's office. In those responses, Mr. Taylor stated that he was in the process of providing certain information to his attorney and that his attorney would be "filing the appropriate appeal." On December 11, 2001, the Clerk informed Mr. Taylor that the Notices to Show Cause would be held in abeyance until January 7, 2002 to permit Mr. Taylor's counsel time to enter an appearance and file the opening brief.
(5) On January 14, 2002, Lacy Holly, Esquire wrote to the Clerk on behalf of Mr. Taylor. Holly informed the Clerk that he was not going to represent Mr. Taylor, but he requested an additional extension of time on Mr. Taylor's behalf to file an opening brief. On the same day, the Clerk informed Mr. Taylor that if the opening brief was not filed on or before January 22, 2002, the appeal would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. To date, no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Mr. Taylor and the opening brief and appendix have not been filed.
(6) Because Mr. Taylor filed the appeal in this Court, it is his duty to diligently prosecute the appeal. Mr. Taylor's brief and appendix have not been filed as required by Supreme Court Rule 15; therefore, this Court is unable to conduct a meaningful review. A pro se litigant's inability to obtain an attorney cannot delay the progress of an appeal. In light of Mr. Taylor's failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not filing his opening brief and appendix, the dismissal of this action is appropriate pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.