not part of the Superior Court’s docket — does not reference Brown’s “Constitutional Complaint.” 3 In their brief, the People contend that this Court should dismiss Bro wn’s appeal as untimely. This Court, however, already resolved the issue of the timeliness of this appeal in our September 27, 2010 Opinion. See Brown v. People, S. Ct. Crim. No. 2007-0063, 2010 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 74 (V.I. Sept. 27, 2010). Importantly, because the People failed to file any documents with this Court in response to our September 1, 2010 Order, Brown’s September 15,2010 Response, or this Court’s September 27,2010 Opinion, the People have waived any arguments with respect to both the timeliness issue and the correctness of the September 27, 2010 Opinion. See Vazquez v. Vazquez, 54 V.I. 485, 490 (V.I. 2010) (<HOLDING>). 4 The statute, 14 V.I.C. § 2256, was amended
holding that where plaintiff fails to raise issue of timeliness of departments hearing at administrative level the issue is waived on appeal holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue holding an appellate brief may serve as a notice of appeal holding that an appellee who fails to file any documents in response to timeliness show cause order or order deeming appeal timely may not relitigate issue of timeliness in appellate brief because a timely notice of appeal is a claimsprocessing rule rather than a jurisdictional requirement