Thursday, December 18, 2014

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
David A. Vanalstyne vs. SCDMV

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

PARTIES:
Appellant:
David A. Vanalstyne

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-21-0357-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant David A. Vanalstyne on June 26, 2008. Appellant’s Notice of Appeal contends that the Office of Motor Vehicle Hearings (OMVH) Final Order and Decision is in error because it fails to comply with the statutory requirements of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 56-1-1020, 1050 and 1133.

On September 16, 2008, Respondent South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Law Court based upon Appellant’s failure to serve notice. 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 receipt of the decision from which the appeal is taken.”) (emphasis added). To date (February 26, 2009), the Appellant has not filed a response to the Department’s Motion. As a result, the 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.”).

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

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

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 26, 2009

Columbia, SC

___________________________________

John D. McLeod, Judge

S.C. Administrative Law Court


~/pdf/080357.pdf
PDF