Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Manuela M. HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.
    No. 05-3294.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Sept. 28, 2005.
    Before MAYER, CLEVENGER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
   CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Manuela M. Henderson requests that the court accept her untimely petition for review.

On April 22, 2005, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued a final decision in Henderson v. Office of Personnel Management, No. SF-0831-01-0634-I-3, 2005 WL 1017290, specifying that its decision was final and that any petition for review must be received by this court within 60 calendar days of receipt of the Board’s decision. Henderson states that she received the Board’s decision on May 23, 2005, and the Board’s records reflect the same date. Henderson’s petition for review was received by the court on July 26, 2005, 64 days after her receipt of the Board’s decision.

Our review of a Board decision is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), which provides that “[njotwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed within 60 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” We have stated that “[c]ompliance with the filing deadline of 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction.” Oja v. Department of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed.Cir.2005). Under the time provision of the statute, Henderson’s petition for review was due in this court within 60 days of receipt of the Board’s final decision, i.e., by July 22, 2005. Because Henderson’s petition for review was received on July 26, 2005, 4 days late, the court must dismiss Henderson’s petition as untimely.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Henderson’s request that we accept her untimely petition for review is denied.

(2) Henderson’s petition for review is dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(4) The revised official caption is reflected above.

(5) All pending motions are moot.