DATE: April 9, 1992
CASE NO. 89-ERA-00042


IN THE MATTER OF
B.R. MCCRUMB,
          COMPLAINANT,
v.


WESTINGHOUSE RADIOLOGICAL
SERVICES, INCORPORATED, AND
VIRGINIA POWER,
RESPONDONTS.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                          FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
                                      
    This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42 U.S.C. 
5851 (1988), and is before me for review of the Recommended Order
of Dismissal issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on April
24, 1990.  Relying on 29 C.F.R.  18.39(b) and 24.5(e)(4)(i)(B)
(1991), the ALJ recommends dismissal based on Complainant's
abandonment and failure to comply with the ALJ's lawful orders. 
Respondents have filed briefs urging that the ALJ's recommended
decision be adopted.  Complainant, pro se, has not responded.
     Upon review, I conclude that the ALJ's recommendation of
dismissal of this claim is appropriate.  Complainant has not
responded to the ALJ's Order dated March 2, l990, 1/ in
which the ALJ ordered Complainant to provide his new mailing
address and phone number and notified Complainant that his
failure to do so would imply abandonment. 2/  Nor has
Complainant filed any response to either the ALJ's
subsequent Order to Show Cause, dated March 29, l990, or his
Recommended Order of Dismissal, despite having the 
[PAGE 2]
opportunity to do so. 3/ Under these circumstances, I agree
with the ALJ that this case must be DISMISSED.  29 C.F.R. 
24.5(e)(4)(i)(B) and (ii), 18.39(b); see 29 C.F.R. 
18.1(a); Avery v. B & W Commercial Nuclear Fuel
Plant, Case No. 9l-ERA-8, Sec. Final Order of
Dismissal, Oct. 21, l991, s1ip Op. at 3-4.           
   SO ORDERED
                                LYNN MARTIN
                                Secretary of Labor       
 
          
          
          
          
          
          





Washington, D.C.





 1/  The ALJ's reference to the document as dated March 2,
1989, is hereby corrected.

2/  In his Order, the ALJ explains that Complainant requested a
postponement of the hearing in August 1989, on the basis that he
was relocating his residence.  Although at that time Complainant
advised that he would contact the ALJ in the following September,
the record shows that Complainant has made no further
communication.

3/ The record reflects that the ALJ's orders were
properly mailed to Complainant's last known
address, see 29 C.F.R.  18.3(c), and,
moreover, that he actually receiYed, on November
26, l99l, a copy of the Secretary's Order
Establishing Briefing Schedule with the ALJ's
recommended decision appended.