Leborne Powell v. Carolyn Wyllis, ST-2016-RV-001 (V.I. 2016) [unpublished]
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN LEBORNE POWELL, Plaintiff/Petitioner On Review, CASE NO. ST-15-SM-163 vs. CASE NO. ST-16-RV-1 CAROLYN WYLLIS a/k/a CAREY WILLIS, Defendant/Respondent On Review. i tl a i i MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition for review challenging a judgment issued by the Magistrate. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s petition will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 12, 2016, Petitioner filed his petition for review. The Clerk of Court issued a letter to Petitioner on February 16, 2016, instructing him concerning the briefing schedule and fees for this appeal. On July 25, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an appellate brief by August 12, 2016, failing which the petition would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court granted Petitioner an extension on August 11, 2016, permitting Petitioner to file a brief by August 31, 2016. Petitioner requested an additional ten day extension on September 7, 2016. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://superior.vicourts.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810747/File/Opinions/Archive/Powell%20v.%20Wyllis%20(MCD).pdf
SHA-256 78f5601754909e7bf0cc10b1d3eb85f661ecc1574d10c0e7f3fbce8c9604d5a2
Re-using this document
edicts of government — judicial opinions are not copyrightable by anyone. NOT 17 USC 105 (territorial court, not federal) and NOT 'rights unstated'.
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-78f560175490
Document text
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN LEBORNE POWELL, Plaintiff/Petitioner On Review, CASE NO. ST-15-SM-163 vs. CASE NO. ST-16-RV-1 CAROLYN WYLLIS a/k/a CAREY WILLIS, Defendant/Respondent On Review. i tl a i i MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition for review challenging a judgment issued by the Magistrate. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s petition will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 12, 2016, Petitioner filed his petition for review. The Clerk of Court issued a letter to Petitioner on February 16, 2016, instructing him concerning the briefing schedule and fees for this appeal. On July 25, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an appellate brief by August 12, 2016, failing which the petition would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court granted Petitioner an extension on August 11, 2016, permitting Petitioner to file a brief by August 31, 2016. Petitioner requested an additional ten day extension on September 7, 2016. To date, Petitioner has failed to file an appellate brief in support of his petition. STANDARD Powell v. Willis Case No. ST-16-RV-1 Memorandum Opinion, October 12, 2016 The Appellate Division of the Superior Court “has jurisdiction to review judgments and orders issued by a Magistrate, as a result of the Magistrate[] exercising [his or her] original jurisdiction as provided for at 4 V.I.C. § 123.”! The Superior Court reviews a Magistrate’s factual determinations for “clear error” and legal findings are “afforded plenary review.”” ANALYSIS V.I. Super. Ct. Rule 322.1(i)(g)(i) establishes that “if a petitioner fails to file [a] brief within the time provided by these rules, or within the time otherwise established by the Court, the petition for review may be dismissed for want of prosecution, on motion by the respondent or by the Court, sua sponte.” Petitioner has failed to file an appellate brief despite the Court giving him two additional months to file his brief. Any additional extension of time “would reward [Petitioner’s] ... failure to comply with this Court's orders.”? As a result, Petitioner’s petition will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. An Order consistent with this Opinion shall follow. Dated: October AL, 2016 HON. MICHAEL C. DUNSTON ATTEST: Estrella H. George JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Acting Clerk of Gqurt \__/ / OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Donna D. Donovan 0 co Court Clerk Supervisor / I" / e * Payne v. Lehtonen, 55 V.1. 286, 289 (Sup. Ct. 2011). ? Super. Ct. R. 322.3(b). Plenary review is a full or complete review. See Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition. 3 See Prosser v. Springel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142911, *16, 2013 WL 5432316 (D.V.I. Sept. 27, 2013).