Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3078

JAMES O. RICHARDSON, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

James O. Richardson , of Pensacola, Florida, pro se.

Sara B. Rearden , Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for res pondent. With her on the brief were B. Chad Bungard , General Counsel, and Rosa M. Koppel , Deputy General Counsel. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNote: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3078 JAMES O. RICHARDSON, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

Appeal from the Merit S ystems Protection Board in case no. AT831M070434-I-1.

__________________ _________ DECIDED: June 12, 2008

__________________ _________ Before MAYER, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. The Merit Systems Protection Board dism issed the petition of Mr. James O. Richardson, a retired federal employee, for fa ilure to prosecute. Mr. Richardson asked

the Board to reconsider the Office of Perso nnel Management’s recom putation of his civil service annuity. The recomputation elim inated credit for Mr. Richardson’s military service after 1956. Because Mr. Richardson failed entirely to comply with the administrative judge’s multiple orders and also failed to ot herwise communicate with the administrative judge, the court affirms.

Federal statute limits this court’s review of Board decisions. This court must affirm a Board decision unless it is “(1) arbitr ary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, orotherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been follow ed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). In turn , the Board’s own regula tions give deciding officials authority to dismiss an appeal for failu re to prosecute. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.43(b). This court has recognized that failure to respond to the Board’s orders may justify

dismissal. See Ahlberg v. Dep’t of H ealth and Human Servs. , 804 F.2d 1238, 1242-43 (Fed. Cir. 1986). After filing his appeal with the Boar d, Mr. Richardson di d not attend the prehearing conference and likewise did not c ontact the Board in any manner before issuance of the administrative judge’s initia l decision. The administrative judge issued multiple orders and provided Mr. Richards on with notice that his appeal would be dismissed if he failed to respond. After the administrative judge issued his initial decision, Mr. Richardson sent a letter petiti oning the Board for review. Mr. Richardson stated in his letter that he thought he was ex pected to participate over the telephone. The Board denied Mr. Richardson’s petitio n and made final the administrative judge’s decision. In doing so, the Board gave Mr. Richardson’s letter consideration. However, Mr. Richardson did not deny receipt of the administrative judge’s orders. He only stated he thought he was supposed to appear by telephone rather than in person. Thus, nothing in the record suggests that th e Board abused its discretion in denying Mr. Richardson’s petition and in adopting the administr ative judge’s initial decision as final.

AFFIRMED

2008-3078 22008-3078 3 COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.