Davis-Moses v. Keystone Human Services ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    ALETHEA DAVIS-MOSES,
    Employee -Appellant,
    C.A. NlSA-lO-013 Al\/[L
    V.
    KEYSTONE HUMAN SERVICES,
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\_/\/\/
    Employer-Appellee.
    Submitted: July 21, 2016
    Decided: October 14, 2016
    ORDER
    Upon Appeal from Commissioner’s Findings of Fact and Recommendations:
    AFFIRMED.
    l. This is an appeal from a Superior Court commissioner’s findings of
    fact and recommendation. The commissioner recommended that the Court affirm
    an Industrial Accident Board decision. The appellant filed objections to the
    commissioner’s decision, relying solely on her briefs submitted to the
    commissioner For the reasons set forth beloW, this Court accepts the
    commissioner’s findings of fact and recommendation and affirms the Industrial
    Accident Board’s decision.
    2. On October 28, 2015, Alethea Davis-Moses appealed an Industrial
    Accident Board decision to this Court. On May 24, 2016, the Court assigned
    Davis-Moses’s appeal to a commissioner.1 On June 24, 2016, the commissioner
    issued his findings of fact and recommendation (the “Findings and
    Recommendation”), recommending that the Industrial Accident Board’s decision
    be affirmed.2 On July 11, 2016, Davis-Moses timely filed an “Appeal from
    Commissioner[’]s Findings of Facts and Recommendations.”3
    3. The appeal, properly referred to as an “objection,” does not comply
    With Superior Court Civil Rule 132 and therefore shall be dismissed. Under Rule
    132, “Within 10 days after filing of a Commissioner’s proposed findings and
    recommendations . . . any party may serve and file Written objections to the
    Commissioner’s order which set forth with particularity the basis for the
    objections.”4 “A party . . . appealing the findings of fact and recommendation of a
    Commissioner . . . Who fails to comply With the provisions of this rule may be
    subject to dismissal of said . . . appeal.”5
    4. Davis-Moses’s Written objection to the commissioner’s Findings and
    Recommendation consists of one sentence:
    1
    D.I. 15.
    2 Davis-Ma.\'es v. Key.stone Human Servs., 
    2016 WL 3583203
    (Del. Super. June 24, 2016).
    3 D.I. 19. The appeal is timely due to the intervening 4th of July holiday, See Del. Super. Ct. R.
    6(a).
    4 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(4)(ii) (emphasis added).
    5 1a 132(b).
    For the reasons set forth in Appellant’s Opening and
    Reply Brief (Attached as Exhibit A and B), Appellant
    objects to Commissioner Bradley’s [sic] recommendation
    that the Industrial Accident Board decision be affirmed.6
    Davis-Moses has failed to set forth with particularity the basis for her objection.
    By pointing only to her original briefing, Davis-Moses makes it impossible for the
    Court to know to what conclusions or recommendation she is obj ecting. The briefs
    Davis-Moses filed before the commissioner issued his Findings and
    Recommendation are not responsive to the Findings and Recommendation and
    therefore fail to state the objection with particularity. Even after the appellee
    pointed out this lack of particularity in its response, Davis-Moses did not make any
    effort to supplement the record.
    5. Rule 132 provides that the Court “shall make a a’e novo determination
    of those portions of the report or specified findings of fact or recommendations to
    ”7 This Court cannot conduct its a’e novo review with
    which an objection is made.
    any confidence without knowing what objections are being advanced.
    Nonetheless, l have reviewed the record, the briefs submitted on appeal, and the
    commissioner’s Findings and Recommendation, and I agree with the commissioner
    that the Industrial Accident Board did not abuse its discretion.
    6 D.I. 19.
    7 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(3)(4)(iv).
    NOW, THEREFORE the Court ACCEPTS, in whole, the commissioner’s
    Findings of Fact and Recommendation. For the reasons stated in such Findings
    and Recommendation, and after a’e nova review of the record, the Industrial
    Accident Board’s decision is AFFIRMED.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Original to Prothonotary
    cc: Danielle K. Yearick, Esquire
    Brian E. Lutness, Esquire
    

Document Info

Docket Number: N15A-10-013 AML

Judges: LeGrow J.

Filed Date: 10/14/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/14/2016