Dunbar v. Usps ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Case: 13-3035    Document: 10    Page: 1   Filed: 03/04/2013
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    __________________________
    TREVOR L. DUNBAR,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
    Respondent.
    __________________________
    2013-3035
    __________________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in case no. SF0752090788-B-1.
    __________________________
    ON MOTION
    __________________________
    Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    ORDER
    The United States Postal Service moves for dismissal
    of the appeal as untimely.
    The Merit Systems Protection Board issued its final
    order on May 24, 2011, and the order was subsequently
    Case: 13-3035       Document: 10   Page: 2     Filed: 03/04/2013
    TREVOR DUNBAR V. USPS                                       2
    sent to Mr. Dunbar. The order was returned to the
    MSPB, and Mr. Dunbar requested that another copy be
    sent to him. The MSPB sent a second copy of the final
    decision to Mr. Dunbar on July 19, 2012, via certified
    mail, which indicates receipt on July 24, 2012. On Octo-
    ber 9, 2012, more than 60 days after he received the copy
    of the final order, Mr. Dunbar filed his petition for review
    with the court.
    Our review of a Board decision or order is governed
    by 5    U.S.C.    § 7703(b)(1),    which     provides    that
    “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any peti-
    tion for review must be filed within 60 days after the date
    the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision
    of the board.” This filing period is “statutory, mandatory,
    [and] jurisdictional.” Monzo v. Dep't of Transporta-
    tion, 
    735 F.2d 1335
    , 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Bowles
    v. Russell, 
    551 U.S. 205
     (2007) (the timely filing of a
    notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional require-
    ment that cannot be waived).
    Because Mr. Dunbar’s petition was not received with-
    in 60 days of the date he received the Board's decision, we
    must dismiss his petition as untimely.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The motion to dismiss is granted.
    (2) All pending motions are moot.
    (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
    Case: 13-3035   Document: 10   Page: 3   Filed: 03/04/2013
    3                             TREVOR DUNBAR V. USPS
    FOR THE COURT
    /s/ Jan Horbaly
    Jan Horbaly
    Clerk
    Issued As A Mandate: March 4, 2013
    s24
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-3035

Filed Date: 3/4/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014