Penn v. Department of Defense ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Case: 14-3023    Document: 10     Page: 1   Filed: 05/06/2014
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    JOHN EDWARD PENN, JR.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
    Respondent.
    ______________________
    2014-3023
    ______________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in No. AT3330120859-I-1.
    ______________________
    PER CURIAM.
    ORDER
    The parties have responded to this court's order di-
    recting them to show cause why this petition should not
    be dismissed as untimely.
    On July 24, 2013, the Merit Systems Protection Board
    issued a final order in John Edward Penn, Jr.’s case. The
    court received his notice of appeal on September 24, 2013,
    which was 62 days after the Board issued its decision.
    Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by
    5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), which provides in relevant part that
    Case: 14-3023         Document: 10   Page: 2     Filed: 05/06/2014
    2                                               PENN   v. DEFENSE
    “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any peti-
    tion for review shall be filed within 60 days after the
    Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the
    Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). Penn does not contest
    the timeliness of his petition but instead argues that
    equitable tolling applies. However, this filing period is
    “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional” and the court
    does not have the authority to waive the requirements.
    Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 
    735 F.2d 1335
    , 1336 (Fed. Cir.
    1984); Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 
    931 F.2d 1544
    , 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Fed. R. App. P.
    26(b)(2).
    Because Penn’s petition concerning the Board's final
    order was filed after the statutory deadline for filing a
    petition, we must dismiss the appeal.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The petition is dismissed.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
    FOR THE COURT
    /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
    Daniel E. O’Toole
    Clerk of Court
    s26
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2014-3023

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/6/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024