Case Title: Omowunmi v. Draper

Citation: 

Docket Number: 146, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TAYO F. OMOWUNMI, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
NICOLE P. DRAPER, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 146, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN00-06767 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 7, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   April 29, 2003 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of April 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, Tayo F. Omowunmi (“Father”), filed 
an appeal from the Family Court’s February 19, 2002 order granting the 
petition of petitioner-appellee, Nicole P. Draper (“Mother”), for sole custody 
of the parties’ minor daughter.  In the order, the Family Court noted that 
Father was notified of the custody hearing, but did not appear and did not 
contact the Family Court “with any indication that he would be unable to 
attend due to his incarceration, or requesting any other relief.” 
 
(2) 
In his appeal, Father claimed that the Family Court hearing 
should not have proceeded in his absence because he requested a 
 
2
continuance on the ground that he was incarcerated at Fort Dix.  In support 
of that contention, Father submitted a copy of a motion for a continuance 
dated February 9, 2002, but no other evidence showing that the motion was 
mailed to the Family Court.  This Court remanded the matter so that Father 
could present any such evidence to the Family Court in the first instance.1 
 
(3) 
On remand, the Family Court requested written submissions 
and supporting documentation from the parties, using Father’s Fort Dix 
address as well as another address in New Castle, Delaware, which had been  
provided by Father.  In the absence of any response by Father to the Family 
Court’s request, the Family Court issued its report, which found that Father 
had failed to sustain his burden of proof that he had requested a continuance 
of the custody hearing in a timely manner.   
 
(4) 
Following receipt of the Family Court’s report following 
remand, the Clerk of this Court sent a letter dated February 4, 2003 to the 
parties, which included a briefing schedule for supplemental memoranda.  
Father’s opening supplemental memorandum was due on or before February 
18, 2003.  
 
(5) 
On March 6, 2003, the Clerk issued a notice to show cause why 
the case should not be dismissed for Father’s failure to diligently prosecute 
                                                          
 
1Omowunmi v. Draper, Del. Supr., No. 146, 2002, Holland, J. (Nov. 17, 2002). 
 
3
the appeal by not filing his opening supplemental memorandum.2   Father 
was directed to respond in writing within 10 days of receipt of the notice to 
show cause or dismissal of the appeal would be deemed to be unopposed.3    
 
(6) 
The appellant has failed to respond to the notice to show cause 
within the required 10-day period.  Therefore, dismissal of this action is 
deemed to be unopposed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice   
 
     
                                                          
 
2SUPR. CT. R. 29(b). 
3The Supreme Court docket reflects that the Clerk’s Office sent the notice to the 
addresses provided by Father.