NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JIMMY R. HILL,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 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

______________________ 

JIMMY R. HILL, Jonesboro, GA, pro se.

LINDSEY SCHRECKENGOST, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and REYNA, Circuit

Judges.
2 HILL v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Mr. Jimmy R. Hill petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction over a fourteen-day suspension. Because the Board did not err in dismissing Mr. 

Hill’s appeal 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. Subsequently, 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 fourteen-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 jurisdiction, as the Board did not have jurisdiction of the appeal

unless the suspension was for more than fourteen days. 

The administrative judge cited to 5 U.S.C. § 7512. The 

initial decision became 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 him “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 unlawful; procedurally deficient; or unsupported 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 suspension 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 

do 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 fourteen days. 

As we find that the Board did not have jurisdiction, 

we affirm and thus do not reach Mr. Hill’s other arguments.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear their own.