N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ JIMMY R. HILL, Petition er

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD, Respondent

______________________

2014

- 3216

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT

- 3443

- 14

- 0778 -I- 1.

______________________

Decided: March 6, 2015

______________________

J IMMY R. H ILL , Jonesboro, GA, pro se.

L INDSEY S CHRECKENGOST , Office of the General Cou nsel, M erit Systems Protection Board , Washington, DC , for respondent

. Also represented by B RYAN G. P OLISUK

.

______________________

Before P ROST , Chief Judge

, M OORE and R EYNA , Circuit Judges.HILL v. MSPB 2

P ER C URIAM

. Mr. Jimmy R. Hill petitions for review of a final dec ision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction over a fourteen

- day suspe nsion. Because the Board did not err in dismissing Mr. Hill’s app eal for lack of jurisdiction, we affirm.
On March 7, 2013, Mr. Hill received a fourteen

- day suspension based on his failure to maintain regular attendance. On June 20, 2014, Mr. Hill filed an initial appeal with the Board challenging his suspension. Su bsequently, the administrative judge issued an order informing Mr. Hill that he had the burden of proof to show that the Board’s jurisdiction extended to his fou rteen- day suspension. Mr. Hill was ordered to file evidence and argument to prove his appeal was within the Board’s jurisdiction. Mr. Hill did not respond to the order.
On July 22, 2014, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdi ction, as the Board did not have jurisdiction of the appeal unless the suspen sion was for more than fourteen days. The administrative judge cited to 5 U.S.C. § 7512. The initial decision be came final on August 26, 2014.
Mr. Hill now argues to this court that the Board did not apply the wrong law to his case, but that it “violated [his] right under the FMLA Act.” Informal Brief 1. Mr. Hill further states, “The USPS fabricated dates and time[s] of my alleged absences the LCA was [illegible word] and the action taken was non

- contractual.” Id . Mr. Hill asks us to make hi m “whole” and allow him to return to work.
Our review is limited. “We may hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unla wful; procedurally deficient; or unsuppor ted by substantial evidence.” Jennings v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. , 59 F.3d 159,HILL v. MSPB 3

160 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Under 5 U.S.C. § 7512 a federal employee is provided the right to Board review of a su spension for more than fourteen days. Mr. Hill has cited to no other statute, or case, that would alter the Board’s statutory jurisdiction. Additionally, Mr. Hill’s arguments d o not address the issue at hand

— whether or not the Board has jurisdiction over his suspension. Therefore, as Mr. Hill maintains the burden to show that the Board has jurisdiction, we affirm the Board’s decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

, as Mr. Hill’s suspension was for only four teen days

. As we find that the Board did not have jurisdiction, we affirm and thus do not reach Mr. Hill’s other arg uments.

AFFIR M ED

C OSTS Each party shall bear their own.