Stein v. Maryland State Police

WEANT, Judge. The appellants in this case are Maryland State Police Troopers Robert M. Stein and Bobby J. Caudill. In late 1981, Stein and Caudill received written reprimands from the appellee Maryland State Police following disciplinary proceedings before the State Police Hearing Board. The appellants, feeling aggrieved by their penalties, appealed to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

On 5 June 1984 the circuit court dismissed the administrative appeal pursuant to former Md. Rule 530 1 for failure to prosecute. Stein and Caudill then noted an appeal to this Court, presenting these questions for review: I. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the administrative appeal under Rule 530 of the former Maryland Rules of Procedures [sic].

II

Whether the trial court erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and Modification under Rule 625(a) of the former Maryland Rules of Procedure. We shall address only the first issue raised by the appellants as it presents sufficient grounds for reversal. The proceedings in the circuit court may be summarized as follows. On 8 December 1981 Stein and Caudill filed a Petition and an Order of Appeal from the State Police Hearing Board proceedings.

On 29 December 1981, the appellee responded with an “Answer to Petition of Appeal,” and shortly thereafter filed the administrative record of the disciplinary proceedings, with a certificate that a copy of the record had been mailed to appellants’ counsel. No further entries appear until 2 March 1983, when the circuit court clerk issued a “Notification to Parties of Contemplated Dismissal,” pursuant to Md. Rule 530(d) (2-507(d)). On 18 March 1983, Stein and Caudill filed a motion to suspend the dismissal rule. Md. Rule 530(e) (2-507(e)).

The ⁷⁰⁵ circuit court judge granted the motion in an order which states: UPON THE FOREGOING Motion for suspension of the operation of Maryland Rule 530, it is this 5th day of April, 1983, by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, ORDERED, that the operation of said Rule be and the same is hereby suspended for a period of ninety (90) days. On 1 July 1983, just a few days before the 90-day period provided in the order was to expire, the appellants filed a “Memorandum of Facts and Law.” Some time thereafter the appellants requested the circuit court assignment office to schedule a hearing date for arguments on the merits. The case was heard on 4 June 1984. On 5 June 1984 the judge dismissed the appeal, because, as he stated in a memorandum opinion, “this case was not heard and decided within 90 days of April 5, 1983 ... the dismissal was self-executing due to the inaction of the parties and the passage of time as held in ...

Stanford [v. District Title Insurance Co., 260 Md. 550 , 273 A.2d 190 (1971) ].” The decision whether a case ought to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 530 for lack of prosecution generally rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Stanford, supra. Similarly, the decision to suspend the operation of the rule upon proper application will be set aside on appeal only in “ ‘extreme cases of clear abuse.’ ” Langrall, Muir & Nopinger v. Gladding, 282