UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

LOTTIE B. BATTLE, Appellant,

v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Agency. DOCKET NUMBER DC

- 0831

- 15

- 0480

- I

- 1

DATE: September 15, 2015



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

Lottie B. Battle , Upper Marlboro, Maryland, pro se. Cynthia Reinhold , Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER ¶1 The appellant has petitioned for review of the April 9, 2015 i nitial d ecision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 9; Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the petition for review as settled.

* A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not require d to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c).2

¶2 After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document
entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ” signed and dated on July 31, 2015. PFR File, Tab 7. The document provides, among other things, for the dismissal of the petition for review. Id ., ¶ 1. ¶3 Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service
, 37 M .S.P.R. 146 , 149 (1988). We find here that the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they understand the terms, and that they agree that the agreement will not be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See PFR File, Tab 7, ¶ 3. ¶4 Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for review “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate under these circumstances. ¶5 This is the final order of the Merit Systems P rotection Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 )

.

NOTICE TO THE APPELL ANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the court at the following address:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, DC 20439 The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this order. See 5 U. S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has3

held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadl ine must be dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management
, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 ( 5 U.S.C. § 7703 ) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the United States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm

. Additional information is available at the cour t’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov . Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of
Practice , and Forms 5, 6, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the
United States Court of A ppeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website

at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information rega rding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal
Circuit . The Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation
in a given case.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. ______________________________ William D. Spencer Clerk of the Board