DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE: April 17, 2014
CBCA 3285
ANTHONY MOORE,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Respondent.
The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.
Anthony Moore, pro se, Alamosa, CO.
Daniel B. Rosenbluth, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Golden, CO, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN, STEEL, and SHERIDAN.
STEEL, Board Judge.
Appellant, Anthony Moore1, appealed a decision regarding the purchase of timber from the Department of Agriculture under the Hunter Gulch Timber Sale contract no. 1202-120984.
1This case was initially docketed, incorrectly, as Hunter Gulch Salvage Sale v. Department of Agriculture. The name of the appellant is corrected with this decision.
Discussion
The Board initially issued an order dated March 19, 2013, requesting the complaint be filed on or before April 19, 2013. Appellant subsequently requested three extensions of time in which to file the complaint. The Board granted these requests, but appellant has failed to file a complaint. The Board has since issued several orders requesting appellant to either file a complaint or explain why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On March 20, 2014, the Board issued an order to show cause, ordering appellant to either file the complaint or show cause on or before April 1, 2014, why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Appellant has failed to comply with any of the Board’s orders since this matter was docketed.
Board Rule 33(c), Sanctions, provides:
When a party or its representative or attorney . . . fails to comply with any direction or order issued by the Board . . . , the Board may make such orders as are just, including the imposition of appropriate sanctions. The sanctions may include:
. . .
(6) Dismissing the case.
48 CFR 6101.33(c) (2013).
This rule makes clear that the Board has authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. As this Board has held, this authority is reserved for situations where parties have repeatedly failed to comply with the tribunal’s orders. Medtek, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 1544, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,285; see Kadin Corp. v. United States, 782 F.2d 175, 176 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This is such a situation, as appellant has failed to comply with any of the Board’s orders or otherwise prosecute this appeal.
Decision
This appeal is DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. _________________________ CANDIDA S. STEEL
Board Judge
We concur:
ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Anthony Moore, CBCA 3285. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.