Thursday, April 19, 2018

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

Montray C. Robinson vs. SCDMV

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

Montray C. Robinson

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles




This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC” or “Court”) pursuant to the filing of the Notice of Appeal on June 25, 2008. Appellant Montray C. Robinson appeals the denial of his request for a reduction of his habitual offender suspension period. DMVH Hearing Officer Debra M. Tippit issued an Order stating same on May 20, 2008. The Record on Appeal was filed by the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (“Department”) on July 24, 2008.

On July 31, 2008, the Department filed a Motion to Dismiss in this matter. The Department contends that Appellant failed to serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the Department as required by ALC Rule 33. See ALC Rule 33 (Rev. 2007) (“The notice of appeal from the final decision of an agency to be heard by the Administrative Law Court shall be filed with the Court and a copy served on each party and the agency whose final decision is the subject of the appeal within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the decision from which the appeal is taken.”) (emphasis added). To date (September 17, 2008), the Appellant has not filed a response to the Department’s Motion. As a result, I find that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. See Elam v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 15, 602 S.E. 2d 772, 775 (2004) (“The requirement of service of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, i.e., if a party misses the deadline, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and has no authority or discretion to ‘rescue’ the delinquent party by extending or ignoring the deadline for service of the notice.”).

Furthermore, this Court takes judicial notice that the Notice of Appeal from the decision rendered on May 20, 2008, was filed on June 25, 2008. As a result, for this reason as well, it is likely that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant appeal. See ALC Rule 33, Elam, supra.

Lastly, pursuant to ALC Rule 37, Appellant was required to file an appellate brief in the above-referenced appeal with this Court “within thirty (30) days after the filing of the Record on Appeal.” ALC Rule 37(A). The Division of Motor Vehicle Hearings filed the Record on Appeal on July 24, 2008. However, to date (September 17, 2008), Appellant has not filed an appellate brief in this matter. ALC Rule 38 provides that:

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.

ALC Rule 38 (Rev. 2007).

By virtue of his request for an appeal, Appellant had an obligation to advance his position, and was given ample time to do so. Nevertheless, Appellant failed to file an appellate brief in support of his appeal. “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).

Accordingly, based upon the forgoing reasons, I find that the Department’s Motion should be granted, and this matter be dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this matter be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.



John D. McLeod

Administrative Law Judge

September 17, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina