L.K. Hudson v. UCBR

• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 1, 2017
• Docket: 432 C.D. 2016
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lori K. Hudson, : Petitioner : : v. : : Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : No. 432 C.D. 2016 Respondent : Submitted: October 21, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge HONORABLE JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COSGROVE FILED: February 1, 2017

In this matter, Petitioner challenges the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Board which affirmed denial of benefits. The briefs of Petitioner and Respondent having been filed, on October 17, 2016, this Court ordered that the matter would be addressed without oral argument.1 By letter dated November 1, 2016, Petitioner advised the Chief Clerk that she was “withdrawing [her] appeal in this matter” and asked to be advised “of any additional steps necessary, if any, to withdraw the appeal.” On November 3, 2016, the Chief Clerk sent a Defect Correction Notice to Petitioner, advising her that her request to withdraw her appeal “must be

1 The per curiam order issued that day advised that the matter would be “submitted on briefs of the Petitioner and Respondent only” and precluded the filing of a brief by the Intervenor for failure to comply with an earlier order directing a brief be filed by September 9, 2016. in the form of a motion [with] a certificate (proof) of service.” Petitioner was further advised that if these corrective steps were not taken “within 14 days of the date of this notice, this matter will be considered abandoned and may be dismissed.” To date, nothing further has been received from Petitioner. Although Petitioner’s November 1 letter indicated a desire to end her appeal, it was, by itself, insufficient to accomplish her goal. Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Clerk of Court’s directive, however, leaves us with little choice but to, in effect, satisfy her wishes by dismissing this matter. See Goetz v. Department of Environmental Resources, 613 A.2d 65 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) citing Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute does not violate a [party’s] due process rights). As such, the Petition for Review is dismissed with prejudice.

___________________________ JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge

2 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lori K. Hudson, : Petitioner : : v. : : Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : No. 432 C.D. 2016 Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Review is dismissed with prejudice.