Jeter v. Premier Transportation (agency decision, September 26, 2019)

Plain-English summary

Keith Jeter pursued an appeal involving Premier Transportation under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. After Jeter did not file his opening brief, the Board ordered him to explain the omission by August 13, 2018. He responded that he was seeking counsel and needed more time, but the Board found those responses insufficient. The Board had warned him in three earlier orders that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and more than a year then passed without further communication. It dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute without deciding the underlying claim.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 49 U.S.C. § 31105
• Outcome: Appeal dismissed for failure to prosecute.
• Key point: Requests for time to find counsel did not preserve an appeal after repeated warnings and more than a year without further communication.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

  IN THE MATTER OF:


  KEITH JETER,                                       ARB CASE NO.       2018-0049

                  COMPLAINANT,                       ALJ CASE NO.       2016-STA-00029

         v.                                          DATE:      September 26, 2019

  PREMIER TRANSPORTATION,

                  RESPONDENT.


                           ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

         On August 2, 2018, the Administrative Review Board (Board) issued an
  Order requiring Complainant to explain why he had not filed his opening brief no
  later than August 13, 2018. The Board did receive responses from Complainant on
  August 13 and 17, 2018, indicating that he was seeking counsel and required
  additional time in which to file his brief.

         After reviewing Complainant’s responses, the Board finds them insufficient
  and declines to extend the time for further response. The Board has previously
  cautioned Complainant in orders issued in June, July, and August of 2018, that
  failure to comply with the Board’s orders could result in dismissal of the appeal. It
  has been over one year since Complainant’s last communication, and under these
  circumstances, we decline to further delay the appellate process.

         Accordingly, Complainant’s appeal is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.

  FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:


  William T. Barto
  Chief Administrative Appeals Judge