DATE: May 20, 1996

CASE NO: 96-STA-14

In the Matter of

EARNEST D. MARCUM,
   Complainant

    v.

FREYMILLER TRUCKING COMPANY,
    Respondent

    I issued a Notice of Hearing and Pre-Hearing Order on February 22, 1996 setting this case for hearing on March 4, 1996 at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. I selected this date because of the time constraints of 29 C.F.R. § 1978.106(b) and the inability to reach the complainant by telephone to ascertain if he would waive the time constraints of that regulation section. I continued the hearing on February 29, 1996 based upon cause shown in the motion of the respondent. In that order of continuance, I directed the parties to advise me of the number of witnesses they intended to call at the hearing and an estimate as to the amount of time needed for the hearing. I also requested the complainant advise me of a telephone number at which he could be contacted.

    Respondent complied with the February 29, 1996 order, but I received no response from Mr. Marcum. I therefore issued an order on April 2, 1996 requiring the complainant to file the information required in the previous order by April 15, 1996. I also indicated in that order that failure to respond to the order and provide the necessary information could result in a dismissal of the complaint involved in this case.

    Freymiller Trucking Company, by motion dated April 24, 1996, requests a dismissal of the complaint involved in this case because of Mr. Marcum's failure to comply with my previous orders. I therefore issued an order to show cause to the complainant allowing him until May 13, 1996 to respond to the motion to dismiss and show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed because of his failure to comply with my previous orders.

    I have failed to receive any responses from the complainant with respect to the orders issued to him, although certified mail receipts indicate that someone received the mail on behalf of the complainant.

    Since the complainant has not responded to any of the orders issued in this case or shown good cause for his failure to do so, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint involved in this case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.6(d)(2). See Cohen v. Roberts Express, 91-STA-29 (Sec'y Feb. 11, 1992).

DONALD W. MOSSER

Administrative Law Judge

NOTICE: This Order of Dismissal and the administrative file in the matter will be forwarded for review by the Secretary of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. The Administrative Review Board has the responsibility to advise and assist the Secretary in the preparation and issuance of final decisions in employee protection cases adjudicated under the regulations at 29 C.F.R. Parts 24 and 1978. See 55 Fed. Reg. 13250 (1990).