Thompson v. Dep't of Commerce

----ooOoo----

Antone R. Thompson
Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Department of Commerce,
Division of Occupational
and Professional Licensing,
Defendant and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000148-CA

F I L E D
June 2, 2000
  2000 UT App 157 -----

Original Proceeding in this Court.

Attorneys:
Antone R. Thompson, Cedar City, Appellant Pro Se
Jan Graham and Jeffrey C. Hunt, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Thompson has not exhausted his administrative remedies and therefore we lack jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-14(2) (1997) (stating a party may only seek judicial review of an agency order "after exhausting all administrative remedies available"). In the October0 29, 1999 order, Thompson was specifically advised that agency review "may be obtained by filing a request for agency review with the Executive Director, Department of Commerce, within thirty (30) days after the date of this order." Even if we assume that the order was not mailed to Thompson until December 3, 1999,(1) he did not file his request for review within thirty days. Instead, Thompson filed his untimely request for review with the agency on January 25, 2000 and then filed a petition for writ of review with us on February 28, 2000.

By not abiding by agency procedure and by missing deadlines, Thompson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, we have no alternative but to dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
 

1. Thompson claims the first copy of the October 29th order he received was illegible due to a copying error. At his request, a second copy was sent to him on December 3, 1999.