Bowers asserted in his petition for review that there is "plenty evidence of cover-ups, corruptions, perjury to federal investigations [sic] by both respondents," and that "[t]he matters in [the] last letter in this case [sic], I do not agree with." But Bowers did not specifically challenge, nor address, the ALJ's findings that his request for a hearing was untimely and that he had failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period. Thus, because Bowers has presented no argument on the decisive issue, there is no reason to require the Respondents to reply to the contentions raised in the petition for review.
Conclusion
Bowers did not file an opening brief in support of his petition for review, and in response to the Board's Order to Show Cause, he failed to explain why he disregarded the Board's briefing order. Bowers's petition for review neither challenges nor addresses the
[Page 5]
ALJ's resolution of the decisive timeliness issue, and thus it would serve no purpose to treat it as a substitute for an opening brief. Because in the absence of an opening brief, Bowers has provided the Board with no relevant grounds for rejecting the ALJ's recommended decision, we DISMISS Bowers's appeal.
SO ORDERED.
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
DAVID G. DYE
Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 42 U.S.C.A. § 5851(a) (West 2007).
2 Bowers v. Bartlett Nuclear, Inc. & Florida Power & Light Co., ALJ No. 2006-ERA-012 (Jan. 15, 2008).
3 Florida Power & Light Co.'s Motion to Dismiss Appeal at 3.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Bartlett Nuclear Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Appeal at 5-6.
7 29 C.F.R. § 24.8(a). The ERA's implementing regulations, found at 29 C.F.R. Part 24, have been amended, since Bowers filed his complaint. 72 Fed. Reg. 44,956 (Aug. 10, 2007). But the limitation period for filing a petition for review with the Board has not changed. Compare 29 C.F.R. § 24.8(a)(2007) with 29 C.F.R. 24.110(a), 72 Fed. Reg. at 44,966.
8 Order to Show Cause at 2. Accord Mugleston v. E G & G Def. Materials, ARB No. 04-060, ALJ No. 2002-SDW-004, slip op. at 2 (ARB June 30, 2004); Blodgett v. Tenn. Dep't of Env't & Conservation, ARB No. 03-043, ALJ No. 2003-CAA-007, slip op. at 2 (ARB Mar. 19, 2004).
9 On April 14, 2008, we issued an Order responding to Bartlett's Motion to Dismiss reiterating our conclusion that Bowers timely filed his petition for review and permitting Bartlett to reply to Bowers's response to our Show Cause Order.
10 ARB No. 99-012, ALJ No. 1998-ERA-033 (Sept. 13, 2000).
11 Id., slip op. at 2. Accord Mugleston, slip op. at 2; Blodgett v. Tenn. Dep't of Env't & Conservation, ARB No. 03-043, ALJ No. 2003-CAA-007, slip op. at 2 (ARB Mar. 19, 2004).
12 Order to Show Cause at 2 (Apr. 9, 2008).
13 Response to Order at 1-5.
14 Ingram v. Shelly & Sands Inc., ARB No. 04-090, ALJ No. 2002-ERA-027, slip op. at 4 (ARB Mar. 31, 2008).
15 D. & O. at 4-5.