Pohl has not responded to the Board's Order to Show Cause and thus he has not explained his failure to timely file an opening brief, nor has he demonstrated good cause why the Board should not dismiss his appeal. Accordingly, we DISMISS Pohl's appeal because he has failed to diligently prosecute it.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
WAYNE C. BEYER
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 49 U.S.C.A. § 42121 (West Supp. 2006). The Secretary of Labor has delegated her authority to decide this matter to the Administrative Review Board. See Secretary's Order 1-2002, (Delegation of Authority and Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board) 67 Fed. Reg. 64,272 (Oct. 17, 2002); 29 C.F.R. § 1979.110.
2 See e.g., McQuade v. Oak Ridge Operations Office, ARB No. 02-087, ALJ Nos. 1999-CAA-007 to 010 (ARB Oct. 18, 2002); Pickett v. TVA, ARB No. 02-076, ALJ No. 2001-CAA-018 (ARB Oct. 9, 2002).
3 Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).
4 Id. at 630-631.
5 ARB No. 99-012, ALJ No. 1998-ERA-033 (Sept. 13, 2000).
6 Id., slip op. at 2. Accord Muggleston v. E G & G Def. Materials, ARB No. 04-060, ALJ No. 2002-SDW-004, slip op. at 2 (ARB June 30, 2004); Blodgett v. Tenn, Dep't of Env't & Conservation, ARB No. 03-043, ALJ No. 2003-CAA-007, slip op. at 2 (ARB Mar. 19, 2004).