Case ID: f-appx_425/html/0909-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francisco J. VELA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.
    No. 2011-3070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    July 12, 2011.
    Edward P. Fahey Jr., Attorney at Law, Laredo, TX, for Petitioner.
    Douglas G. Edelschick, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) moves to dismiss Francisco J. Vela’s petition for review as untimely.

On October 22, 2010, an administrative judge issued an initial decision, affirming OPM’s denial of Vela’s claims, and notifying Vela that, absent an appeal to the Board, the decision would become final on November 26, 2010. The Board further informed Vela that any petition for review must be received by this court within 60 calendar days of the date the initial decision became final. Vela did not appeal the initial decision to the Board. Vela’s petition for review was received by the court on January 27, 2011, 62 days after the Board’s decision became final on November 26.

A petition for review must be received by the court within 60 days of receipt of notice of the Board’s final order. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). To be timely filed, the petition must be received by this court on or before the date that the petition is due. Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544, 1546 (Fed.Cir.1991) (petition is filed when received by this court; court dismissed petition received nine days late).

Because Vela’s petition was not timely received by this court, it must be dismissed based on controlling precedent of this court. See Oja v. Dep’t of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“Seeing no specific authorization for the equitable tolling of section 7703(b)(1), we find that the congressionally approved statements of Rules 15(a)(1) and 26(b)(2) require the conclusion first reached in Mon-zo and herein followed. Compliance with the filing deadline for 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction over this case.”).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) OPM’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.