Shipley-Johnson v. United States Postal Service ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: This order is nonprecedential
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    DAWN SHIPLEY-JOHNSON,
    Petitioner,
    V.
    UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
    Respondent.
    2010-3172
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in case no. NY3443100129-I-1.
    ON MOTION
    Before GAJARsA, ScHALL, and MooRE, Circui.»t Ju,dges.
    PER CUR1AM.
    0 R D E R
    The United States Postal Services moves to dismiss
    DaWn Shipley-Johnson’s petition for review as untimely.
    Shipley-Johnson opposes. The Postal Service moves for
    an extension of time to file a reply and replies Shipley-
    Johnson submits a motion for reconsideration of the
    court's initial rejection of her petition for review
    SHIPLEY-JOHNSON V. USPS 2
    The Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed Ship-
    ley-Johnson’s appeal and informed Shipley-Johnson that,
    if she did not petition the full Board for review of the
    Administrative Judge's decision, the Board's decision
    would become final on May 26, 2010. The Board informed
    Shipley-Johnson that any petition seeking review by this
    court must be received by this court within 60 calendar
    days of the date that the Board’s decision became final
    Shipley-Johnson did not petition the full Board for review.
    Her petition seeking review by this court was received on
    July 27, 2010, or 62 days after the Board's decision be-
    came final.
    A petition for review must be received by the court
    within 60 days of receipt of the Board's final order. 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (b)(1). A petition for review must be re-
    ceived by this court within the deadline and not merely
    mailed before the deadline. Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A).
    The 60-day filing period is "statutory, mandatory, [and]
    jurisdictional." Monzo v. Dep't of Transp., 
    735 F.2d 1335
    ,
    1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Oja v. Dep't of the Arrny,
    
    405 F.3d 1349
    , 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[c]ompliance with
    the filing deadline of 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (b)(1) is a prerequi-
    site to our exercise of jurisdiction"). Because Shipley-
    Johnson’s petition was not timely received by this court, it
    must be dismissed
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THATZ
    (1) The motion for an extension of time is granted
    (2) The motion to dismiss is granted.
    (3) All other pending motions are denied as 1noot.
    (4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
    3 sHIPLEY-JoHNsoN v. UsPs
    FoR THE CoURT
    1 5  lsi Jan Horbaly
    Date J an Horbaly
    Clerk
    cc: Dawn Shipley-Johnson
    S20 Armando A. Rodr1guez-Feo, Esq. u.s'c0UR¥HFEPPEAL§TF0R
    THE FEDERAL C¥F"
    1 tim dr "°V152vw
    ssue s an a e. N0V 15 mm
    JAN HORBALY
    CLERK
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-3172

Judges: Gajarsa, Schall, Moore

Filed Date: 11/16/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024