In the Matter of a Mail Dispute    	) May 7, 1997               
Between                            	) 
                                   	) 
JOHN COMBS                         	) 
 				   	) 
and 		                   	) 
                                   	) 
BARBARA J. DENAHAN and 	           	) 
STEPHEN J. DENAHAN             	   	)  P.S. Docket No. MD 96­397 

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT COMBS:	   	John Combs 
 				   	908 SW 51 Way 
 				   	Gainesville, FL 32607-3859 
 
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANTS DENAHAN: 	Patrice Boyes, Esq. 
				   	Boyes & Associates, P.A. 
 				   	P.O. Box 1424 
                             	   	Gainesville, FL 32602-1424 

On April 15, 1997, an Initial Decision on Motion to Dismiss was issued in which it was concluded that all mail addressed to Online Computing and/or OnLine Computing Inc., which is currently being held or hereafter received, is to be delivered to Denahan & Associates, d/b/a Online Computing, 3550-L SW 34 Street, Gainesville, FL 32608-6521. Disputant Combs has filed an appeal from the Initial Decision and in addition has requested a 60 day continuance of this proceeding in order for him to obtain counsel or to take such other actions as he deems appropriate.

Disputant Combs has not shown that the Administrative Judge's Initial Decision is clearly erroneous or that any other grounds exist for the Judicial Officer to exercise his discretion to grant review of the Initial Decision. Disputant Comb's contention that his refiling of the complaint should be considered a new dispute is without merit. Mr. Combs' letter of February 15, 1997 requests that his complaint be refiled and his arguments relate to the mail originally in dispute. Therefore, it was proper for the Administrative Judge to reopen the proceeding.

Disputant Combs' dissatisfaction with the settlement agreement and his contentions that he was misinformed about its meaning and not competently represented by counsel are not proper issues for decision under the circumstances of this mail dispute. Under the applicable regulations (39 C.F.R. §965), the purpose of these proceedings is only to determine and direct the delivery of the disputed mail. If Disputant Combs wishes to pursue a breach of contract claim, or any other claim regarding the settlement agreement, against the Denahans, he must do so in accordance with the terms of the agreement, which provides that enforcement of the agreement "will be in a court of competent jurisdiction in Alachua County, Florida, and that the agreement will be interpreted under applicable Florida law." Disputant Combs' complaints are against the Denahans, not the United States Postal Service, and are properly within the jurisdiction of the Alachua County courts. Moreover, should either party obtain a court order directing delivery of mail, postal regulations provide that mail will be delivered in accordance with such orders (Postal Operations Manual (POM 7, August 1, 1996) §616.3).

Finally, Disputant Combs has not shown that a delay in the issuance of a final order is appropriate. Mr. Combs has had more than sufficient time to obtain legal representation and to pursue his remedies in a court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, no continuance will be granted.

Since the Judicial Officer has determined he will not exercise his discretion to grant review of the Initial Decision, the Initial Decision is the final agency decision. The parties are once again reminded that this decision determines only the right to delivery of the mail in dispute, not the ownership of the mail. If either party receives mail intended for the other, that party is responsible for forwarding such mail to the intended recipient.

					James A. Cohen
					Judicial Officer