June 2, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by ETHEL BETTS 130-19 218th Street at Laurelton, NY 11413-1232 P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-21 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Ethel Betts 130-19 218th Street Laurelton, NY 11413-1232 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Peter Henry, Esq. Larissa O. Taran, Esq. Employment and Labor Law United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260-1137
DECISION ON PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Ethel Betts, filed a Petition on January 20, 2000. On February 3, 2000, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition because the documents filed by Petitioner did not comply with 39 C.F.R. §961.4 (a copy of which was forwarded to Petitioner with the Notice of Docketing of Petition). By Order dated February 4, 2000, Petitioner was given an opportunity to complete her Petition by providing the missing information within ten days of receipt of that Order. Petitioner filed no reply.
By Order dated March 20, 2000, because we were not certain that Petitioner had actually received the motion or the February 4 Order, those documents were sent to her again and she was given additional time, to April 7, 2000, to reply. This Order stated that the case would be dismissed if a reply was not received by April 7. Petitioner received the March 20 Order on March 23, 2000, but filed nothing in reply. Accordingly, Respondent's motion was granted and the Petition was dismissed on April 14, 2000.
After receiving the dismissal of her Petition, Petitioner filed a "second attempt to petition a hearing in the matter of my indebtedness to the U.S. Postal Service." This was treated as a motion for reconsideration (39 C.F.R. §961.9), and Respondent filed a reply, arguing that the motion for reconsideration should be denied.
The March 20 Order specifically told Petitioner that her petition would be dismissed if she did not reply by April 7, and she has submitted nothing that would excuse her failure to respond to that order or to the earlier order. In her request for reconsideration she concedes that, "initially I was negligent in the submission of pertinent data." Under these circumstances, Petitioner is not entitled to relief from the April 14, 2000 Dismissal. (See Tommie L. Madlock, P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-165 (October 10, 1997).
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge