IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
JOHN K. WILLIAMS,) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) 
) C.A. No. 01A-10-012 CG 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
) 
Appellee. ) 
Date Submitted: April 5, 2002 
Date Decided: May 10, 2002 
ORDER 
On Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Affirmed. 
John K. Williams, pro se, Wilmington, Delaware, Appellant.
Stephani Ballard, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee.
GOLDS TEIN, J.

This 10th day of May, 2002, upon consideration of the record in this case and 
the papers filed by the parties, it appears to the C ourt that: 

(1) Appellant, John K. Williams, worked for Alliance Environmental, Inc. 
from January 1997 until February 2001 when Alliance terminated Williams’ employment. 
On February 11, 2001, Williams applied for unemployment benefits with the Department of 
Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance. 

(2) On March 6, 2001, a Claims Deputy determined that Williams was 
disqualified from receipt of benefits because he was discharged for just cause in connection 
with his work. O n March 27, 2001, Williams filed an untimely appeal of the Claims 
Deputy’s decision. On April 12, 2001, an A ppeals Referee conducted a hearing solely to 
consider the issue of the timeliness of Williams’ appeal. Williams failed to appear at the 
hearing and the Appeals Referee dismissed the appeal. 

(3) On June 25, 2001, Williams filed an untimely appeal of the Appeals 
Referee’s decision to dism iss his appeal. On July 12, 2001, the Board remanded the matter 
to the Appeals Referee. On July 30, 2001, the Appeals Referee conducted a hearing pursuant 
to the remand to consider the timeliness of Williams’ appeal. On August 3, 2001, the 
Appeals Referee issued a written decision affirming the decision of the Claims Deputy. The 
Appeals Referee determined that Williams failed to file a timely appeal of the Claims 
Deputy’s decision. 

(4) On August 31, 2001, Williams filed an untimely appeal of the Appeals 
Referee’s decision. On October 12, 2001, the Board issued its written decision, declining 
to accept jurisdiction over Williams’ late appeal. Williams has now appealed the decision 
of the Board to this Court pursuant to 19 Del. C . § 3323. 

(5) Williams has appealed the Board’s October 12, 2001 decision. 
Therefore, the sole issue before the Court on appeal is whether the Board erred as a matter 
of law or abused its discretion by refusing to accept jurisdiction over Williams’ late appeal. 
In his Notice of Appeal, Williams lists as his grounds for relief: "I never received notice from 
unemployment office;" "I never received a hearing from appeals board;" "I was unable to 
make assigned dates for hearings because of incarceration;" and "Was told I didn’t have to 
continue to file appeal, office already had information. This caused delay in my appeal." 

(6) However, in his opening brief, which Williams titled, "Response to Fact 
Finding Statement," Williams merely sets forth a lengthy narrative of the facts surrounding 
the merits of his claim for unemployment benefits. Williams does not address his stated 
grounds for appeal or raise any legal argument of those grounds. Appellee argues that, by 
failing to address his grounds for appeal in his opening brief, Williams has abandoned them 
on appeal. 

(7) Generally, an appellant’s failure to a raise a legal issue in the text of an 
opening brief constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal. Murph y v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 
1152 (Del. 1993). In the instant case, Williams has failed to address his stated grounds for 
relief, or indeed to raise any legal argument at all. As a result, the Court finds that Williams 
has waived his claims, quoted above, by failing to argue them in his opening brief. 

Therefore, the Board’s decision is hereby AFFIRMED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Carl Goldstein, Judge 
oc: Prothonotary