The undersigned have reviewed the prior Decision and Order based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Ford. The appealing party has not shown good ground to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, rehear the parties or their representatives, or amend the Decision and Order.
2. Plaintiff presented no evidence of any negligent acts to support his claim. Although plaintiff cites "negligence" in his affidavit, the evidence presented by plaintiff does not support a claim for negligence but rather for intentional acts.
3. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the grounds that no negligent acts are alleged.
4. At the hearing before the Deputy Commissioner, plaintiff requested a continuance of the case.
2. Furthermore, plaintiff in his complaint has failed to name any negligent employee or agent of defendant. To recover under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff must identify the specific employees alleged to have been negligent and set forth the specific act or acts of negligence relied upon. Ayscoe v. North Carolina State Highway Commission,
3. As there are no reasonable grounds or possible benefit from further delay, plaintiff was not entitled to a continuance before the Deputy Commission and the denial of the continuance was proper.
3. Each party shall bear its own costs.
This the ___ day of December 2001.
S/_______________ DIANNE C. SELLERS COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
S/____________ BUCK LATTIMORE CHAIRMAN
S/______________ RENE C. RIGGSBEE COMMISSIONER
