 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Proctor v. Ranger Insurance Co.12/27/2002
Submitted: November 14, 2002
ORDER
This 27th day of December 2002, it appears that:
(1) In September 2000, the appellant, Ronald E. Proctor, Jr., brought a personal injury action in the Superior Court. On November 2, 2001, the Superior Court dismissed Proctor's amended complaint without prejudice for Proctor's failure to comply with the pleading requirements of the Superior Court Civil Rules. This appeal followed.
(2) On January 28, 2002, the Clerk issued a brief schedule directing Proctor to file the opening brief and appendix on or before February 27, 2002. On February 11, 2002, Proctor requested a sixty-day extension of time to file his brief. Proctor followed his sixty-day extension request with a request for a thirty-five day extension of time in April 2002. The April 2002 extension request was followed by another request for a sixty-day extension of time in May 2002. In September 2002, instead of filing his opening brief and appendix, Proctor filed a motion for stay. The September motion for stay was followed by a second and a third motion for stay in November 2002. Proctor still has not filed his opening brief and appendix.
(3) On November 4, 2002, the Clerk issued a notice directing Proctor to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his opening brief and appendix. Proctor responded to the notice to show cause on November 14, 2002.
(4) In his response to the notice to show cause, Proctor urges a litany of self-serving explanations and excuses for his failure to file the opening brief and appendix. In a claim that is specious at best, Proctor chastises this Court for giving him "less than 10 days to order items needed to complete a 6 point brief." Proctor also takes the prison law librarian to task for denying him access to "various items needed" and for otherwise thwarting his efforts to conduct legal research. That argument is equally unimpressive. Proctor's appeal is not a complicated legal matter that requires extensive legal research.
(5) The Court will not countenance Proctor's attempts to blame others for his repeated failure to file the opening brief and appendix. Proctor filed the appeal in this Court. It is his duty to diligently prosecute the appeal. Proctor has not established good cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file the opening brief and appendix.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Proctor's appeal is DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b).
Page 1 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|