Case Title: DONALD NATHAN V. AMERICAN GLOBAL UNIVERSITY, and STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
DONALD NATHAN V. AMERICAN GLOBAL UNIVERSITY, and STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION2005 WY 64113 P.3d 32Case Number: No. 04-141Decided: 06/08/2005
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
DONALD E. 
NATHAN,         

Appellant 
(Claimant/Petitioner),      

 
 
v.         

Appellee 
(Employer/Respondent),

 
 
and      

 
 
STATE OF 
WYOMING, 
DEPARTMENT OF         

EMPLOYMENT, 
UNEMPLOYMENT          

INSURANCE 
COMMISSION,          

Appellee 
(Intervenor/Respondent). 

 
 
Appeal from 
the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge 

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Donald E. 
Nathan, pro se

 
 
Representing 
AppelleeState of Wyoming, Department of Employment, 
Unemployment Insurance Commission:

Patrick J. 
Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; 
Steven R. Czoschke, Senior Assistant Attorney General; William L. Weaver, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General

 
 
Representing 
American Global University:

Leigh E. 
Stinner, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1] 
Appellant Donald D. Nathan, pro se, appeals the decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Commission, Department of Employment, State of Wyoming, 
that Nathan voluntarily left his most recent work with American Global 
University in Cheyenne, Wyoming, without good cause attributable directly to his 
employment and not for bona fide medical reasons involving his health and was, 
therefore, disqualified from benefit entitlement under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
27-3-311(a)(i)(A).

 
 
[¶2]Although 
the Commission responds to the substance of the appeal, it raises a preliminary 
question about Nathan's alleged failure to comply in several respects with the 
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and requests this Court to exercise its 
discretion under W.R.A.P. 1.03 and either refuse to consider Nathan's 
contentions or dismiss his appeal for his alleged failure to comply with various 
provisions of those appellate procedural issues.

 
 
[¶3] This 
Court finds that the Commission's preliminary question about Nathan' s alleged 
non-compliance with various provisions of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate 
Procedure is well-taken.  We hold 
that Nathan has failed to comply with a number of applicable rule provisions 
identified by the Commission and, exercising our discretion under W.R.A.P. 1.03, 
we summarily affirm the Commission's decision disqualifying Nathan from benefit 
entitlement under § 27-3-311(a)(i)(A).

 
 
[¶4] A 
party seeking judicial review of administrative action, as in this case, must 
comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.  W.R.A.P. 1.02 and 12.11.  A party's failure to comply with any 
rule other than the jurisdictional rule requiring the timely filing of a notice 
of appeal "is ground only for such action as the appellate court deems 
appropriate, including but not limited to: refusal to consider the offending 
party's contentions; assessment of costs; dismissal; and affirmance."  W.R.A.P. 1.03.

 
 
[¶5] The 
Commission has identified in Nathan's appellate brief the following instances of 
non-compliance with provisions of the appellate rules:

 
 
1. The 
title page does not contain the appropriate caption as r equired by W.R.A.P. 
7.01(a)(1).  It is captioned "The 
Supreme, State of Wyoming" and the parties are not designated 
"appellant" and "appellee."

 
 
2. Nathan 
presents no clear statement of the issues.  
Haworth v. Royal, et al., 2003 WY 26, ¶2, 63 P.3d 912, ¶2 
(Wyo. 
2003).  Instead, he presents a 
rambling six-page discourse that haphazardly mentions due process, equal 
protection, perjury, abuse of discretion, constitutionality, and employment 
security law.

 
 
3. Nathan's 
Statement of the Case is insufficient as it contains facts not in the 
record.  It does not set forth the 
disposition of the case in the district court or make any reference to documents 
listed in the index of the transmitted record as required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(1) 
and (2).

 
 
4. Nathan's 
argument is not cogent and does not contain citations to relevant statutes and 
parts of the record as required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(f)(1).  Additionally, his argument does not set 
forth a concise statement of the applicable standard of review for each issue as 
required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(f)(2).

 
 
5. Nathan's 
brief does not have an appendix that contains a copy of the final order appealed 
from and the trial court 's written reasons for judgment as required by W.R.A.P. 
7.01(j).

 
 
6. Nathan's 
brief violates W.R.A.P. 7.05(b)(3) dealing with format in that, starting 
approximately midway down on page 10 and running through page 12, the font is 
less than 10 characters per inch.

 
 

[¶6] This 
Court agrees with the Commission's identification of instances of Nathan 's 
non-compliance with provisions of the appellate rules.  Under the authority of W.R.A.P. 1.03, we 
summarily affirm the decision of the Commission.  MTM v. State, 2001 WY 61, 26 P.3d 1035 (Wyo. 2001); Dewey Family Trust, et al. v. Mountain West Farm Bureau 
Mutual Ins. Co., 3 P.3d 833 (Wyo. 2000).