Title: Alcock v. Residence Inn by Marriott, Inc. & UIAB

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PAULA ALCOCK,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT, 
INC. and UNEMPLOYMENT 
INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, 
 
           Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 295, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 11A-08-009 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: June 26, 2012 
Decided: July 12, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On May 31, 2012, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed on April 5, 
2012, affirming the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 
which denied the appellant unemployment insurance benefits.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s 
April 5, 2012 order should have been filed on or before May 7, 2012.  
 
(2) 
On June 1, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why her appeal 
 
2
should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed her response 
to the notice to show cause on June 26, 2012.  In the response, she states 
that, due to financial stress, she is no longer able to afford internet access, 
which enabled her to check her correspondence with the Supreme Court.  
The appellant offers no other reason why she did not file a timely notice of 
appeal. 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a), a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 
days after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be received 
by the Office of the Clerk of the Court within the applicable time period in 
order to be effective.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure 
to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3  Unless the 
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel, his or her appeal may not be 
considered.4   
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel.  Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  
Thus, the Court concludes that this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice