Title: Saunders v. Taylor, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

Saunders v. Taylor, et al.  Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ROBERT SAUNDERS, Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER STAN TAYLOR, WARDEN RICK KEARNEY, SCI, KENNETH KRESGER, KITCHEN SUPERVISOR, SCI, CARL ANSON, MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR, LANCE NIENOW, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND WEINBRENNER SHOE CO., INC., Respondents Below, Appellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 326, 2000 Court Below: Superior Court of of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County, C.A. No. 99C-07-007. ORDER This 5th day of October 2000, it appears to the Court that: 1. On September 18, 2000, the Clerk issued a notice to the appellant, Robert Saunders, to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for Saunders failure to pursue the appeal diligently. On August 30, 2000, the Senior Court Clerk directed Saunders either to make payment arrangements with the Court Reporter for preparation of the oral ruling appealed from or to apply for a transcript of the ruling at State expense by September 13, 2000. Saunders failed to take any action. 2. Saunders also failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten day period. Dismissal of this action therefore is deemed to be unopposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: s/Myron T. Steele __________________________ Justice 2