E.B. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 14 2018, 7:34 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT, PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
E.B. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Andrea E. Rahman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

E.B., November 14, 2018
Appellant, Court of Appeals Case No.
93A02-1712-EX-2997
v. Appeal from the Review Board of
the Indiana Department of
Review Board of the Indiana Workforce Development
Department of Workforce The Honorable Mackenzi Payne-
Development, Crowe, Administrative Law Judge
Appellee. Steven F. Bier, Chairperson
Lawrence A. Daily, Member

Trial Court Cause No.
17-R-1478

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1712-EX-2997 | November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 4
 Statement of the Case
[1] E.B. (“E.B.”), pro se, appeals the Review Board of the Indiana Department of

Workforce Development’s (“Review Board”) decision, dismissing his appeal

based on his failure to timely appeal the determination that he was not entitled

to unemployment benefits. E.B. makes no cogent argument and has failed to

cite to any relevant case law. As a result, we conclude that he has waived

appellate review, and we affirm the Review Board’s decision.

[2] We affirm.

Facts
[3] After E.B.’s employment with Federal Express was terminated, he filed for

unemployment benefits with the Indiana Department of Workforce

Development (“the Department”). On September 29, 2017, a claims deputy

determined that E.B. was not entitled to benefits because he had been

discharged for just cause. That same day, the Department sent—via mail and

email—notice of the denial to E.B. The notice informed E.B. that he had

thirteen days to appeal the claims deputy’s determination. Thus, E.B. had until

October 12, 2017 to appeal. E.B. attempted to appeal the determination on

October 25, 2017.

[4] An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a telephonic hearing on November

15, 2017 to determine whether E.B. had filed a timely appeal pursuant to

INDIANA CODE § 22-4-17-2. Thereafter, the ALJ issued a decision, concluding

that E.B.’s appeal was untimely and dismissing the appeal. E.B. appealed the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1712-EX-2997 | November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 4
 ALJ’s decision to the Review Board, and it affirmed the ALJ’s decision. E.B.

now appeals.

Decision
[5] Initially, we note that E.B. proceeds pro se in this appeal.

It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal
standards as licensed attorneys. This means that pro se litigants
are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must
be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so . .
. . While we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where the
appellant’s noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial
as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the
alleged errors waived. We will not become an advocate for a
party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly
developed or expressed to be understood.

Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted), reh’g denied.

[6] E.B.’s appellate brief is scant in content and argument.1 Indeed, he makes

absolutely no argument that his appeal was timely nor any other argument

challenging the Review Board’s decision that he had failed to timely appeal the

claims deputy’s determination that E.B. was not entitled to unemployment

benefits. Instead, he appears to attempt to challenge the determination itself

1
E.B.’s brief is also somewhat confusing as he asserts that the Review Board improperly denied
“unemJeffrey Arnold’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus” and because one page of his brief contains the
following header: “Brief of Appellee Keith Butts[.]” (E.B.’s Br. 5) (typo in original).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1712-EX-2997 | November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 4
 and the denial of his request for unemployment benefits. E.B.’s brief contains

no cogent argument nor citation to caselaw, let alone relevant caselaw. As a

result, we conclude that E.B. has waived appellate review, and we affirm the

Review Board’s decision. See Basic, 58 N.E.3d at 984 (explaining that the

consequences of failing to make a cogent argument on appeal is waiver of the

appeal).2

[7] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.

2
E.B. also asserts “[f]or the first time on appeal,” that the Department “falsely denied him unemployment”
and violated his federal constitutional rights. (E.B.’s Br. 13). Aside from the lack of cogent argument, he
also did not raise such an argument below. Accordingly, he has waived any such argument. See Cunningham
v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 913 N.E.2d 203, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that “a
party who fails to raise an issue before an administrative body has waived the issue on appeal”).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1712-EX-2997 | November 14, 2018 Page 4 of 4