Walsh v. Utah Valley State College, 94-LCA-5 (ALJ Apr. 1994)

U.S. Department of Labor             Office of Administrative Law Judges
                                     501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4300
                                     Long Beach, California  90802
                                     (310) 980-3594
                                     (310) 980-3596
                                     FAX (310) 980-3597


DATE:

CASE NO:  94-LCA-00005

IN THE MATTER OF

     DWIGHT M. WALSH, PHD,              
          Complainant,
     v.

     UTAH VALLEY STATE COLLEGE,
          Respondent.


                     ORDER OF DISMISSAL
                                     
     This case arises under the H-1B Special Occupations under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) administered by the United
States Department of Labor (USDOL) and the implementing regulations
at 29 C.F.R. § 507.800 et seq.

     This matter has been assigned to the undersigned
Administrative Law Judge for hearing and decision.  By way of
notice dated March 21, 1994, this matter was set for formal hearing
at Salt Lake City, Utah on Monday, May 2, 1994, at 9:00 a.m.  

     The undersigned is in receipt of a letter dated April 20,
1994, and received April 25, 1994, from Tom Cantrell,
Administrative Law Representative, with Utah Legal Advocates with
respect to the above-styled matter.  Mr. Cantrell states in said
letter that Dr. Walsh wishes to dismiss the above-styled matter
against Utah Valley State College without prejudice.  By letter
dated April 26, 1994, Thomas C. Anderson, Esq., Assistant Attorney
General of Utah, was invited to respond to the letter motion of the
Complainant, Dwight M. Walsh, Phd.

     The undersigned received via facsimile on April 28, 1994, a
letter from Messr. Anderson on behalf of Utah Valley State College,

[PAGE 2]
the Respondent.  Mr. Anderson asserts that the Respondent believes
that Dr. Walsh should be allowed to withdraw his appeal.  However,
Messr. Anderson further asserts that should dismissal not be
granted, that his client will be ready to go forward with the
scheduled hearing on May 2, 1994.

     After reviewing the entire file in this matter and further
being fully advised in the premises, it is determined that the
Motion for Dismissal by the Complainant in the above-styled matter
should be GRANTED.  Accordingly, pursuant to the procedural
rules at 29 C.F.R. § 18.29(a)(8) and F.R.C.P.41(a)(2), the
above-styled matter is HEREBY DISMISSED without prejudice.


     SO ORDERED this      day of April, 1994,
at Long Beach, California.



                                   SAMUEL J. SMITH
                                   Administrative Law Judge

SJS:lmh