September 23, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > Whistleblower Collection |
USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Office of Administrative Law Judges 211 Main Street - Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94105
(415) 744-6577 NOVEMBER 27, 1989
CASE NOS: 86-ERA-18 IN THE MATTER OF
THOMAS R. MCGOUGH III
UNITED STATES NAVY, ROICC
These matters were by the Secretary' s June 30, 1988 Order, remanded to Administrative Law Judge Joseph A. Matera. Since Judge Matera had retired the matters were assigned to Judge Robert L. Ramsey and, following his continuance of the scheduled August 30, 1988 through September 2, 1988 hearing to me. See my Notice rescheduling these matters for January 24, 1989 through January 27, [Page 2] 1989, November 18, 1988 Order of Stay, with January 13, 1989 Explanatory Supplement to order of Stay. See also my June 2, 1989 Order Lifting Stay and Notice of Rescheduled Trial for October 18, 1989 through October 20, 1989. The October 12, 1989 order of Continuance reflects the occurrences subsequent to June 2, 1989, the U.S. Navy's Motion to Dismiss. On November 21, 1989 the Complainants., represented by counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaints with their Stipulation for Dismissal with prejudice, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney's fees. Based on the parties' submissions, and the procedural regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 24 it does not appear to me that in the circumstances of these submissions a Recommended Order of Dismissal subject to the Secretary's final review action,, is appropriate to the procedural history and November 21, 1989 Complainants' Motion, notwithstanding the Secretary's June 30, 1988 Remand Order. A dismissal for cause, which this is not, could, under 29 C.F.R. § 24.5(e)(4)(i)(i) be finally issued by the administrative law judge. The following Order is thus issued on the procedural history of these matters, and the parties' October 5, 1989 through November 21, 1984 submissions.
Based on the parties' submissions and requests, the complaints of Thomas McGough, William Toth and Thomas Sylvester under the employee protection provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1982), the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1982), the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i) (1982), the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1982), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (1982) are dismissed with prejudice. It is so ORDERED.
ELLIN M. O'SHEA
San Francisco, California EMO:bjh |
||||||||
|