UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 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THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*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 initial decision 

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 * A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 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 

required 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 Protection Board in this appeal. 

Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.113).

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT 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 has 
3

held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline 

and that filings that do not comply with the deadline 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 court’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 Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website 

at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding 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