U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges
525 Vine Street, Suite 900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
DATE: May 20, 1996
CASE NO: 96-STA-14
In the Matter of
EARNEST D. MARCUM,
Complainant
v.
FREYMILLER TRUCKING COMPANY,
Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
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.
[Page 2]
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).