UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

KELVIN RICKY WATSON, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-1221-16-0371-W-1

DATE: November 23, 2016

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Kelvin Ricky Watson, Jr., Esquire, Cary, North Carolina, pro se.

Jeffrey Wilson, Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has petitioned for review of the May 13, 2016 Initial Decision 

in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 8, Initial Decision; Petition for Review 

 

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential ord ers, 

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 Boa rd 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2

(PFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the petition for 

review as settled.

¶2 After filing the petition for review, the parties submitted a document 

entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the appellant on 

August 15, 2016, and by the agency on August 16, 2016. PFR File, Tabs 4-5. 

The document provides, among other things, for dismissing the petition for 

review. Id.

¶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. PFR File, Tab 5, ¶ 2.

¶4 Accordingly, we find that dismissing 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 RIGHTS2

You have the right to request review of this final decision by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

 

2

The initial decision did not afford the appellant notice of appeal rights under the 

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. We have provided notice of such 

appeal rights herein.
3

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 

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 want to request review of the Board’s decision concerning your 

claims of prohibited personnel practices under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), 

(b)(9)(A)(i), (b)(9)(B), (b)(9)(C), or (b)(9)(D), but you do not want to challenge 

the Board’s disposition of any other claims of prohibited personnel practices, you 

may request review of this final decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The court of 

appeals must receive your petition for review within 60 days after the date of this 

order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose 

to file, be very careful to file on time. You may choose to request review of the 

Board’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any 

other court of appeals of competent jurisdiction, but not both. Once you choose 

to seek review in one court of appeals, you may be precluded from seeking 

review in any other court.

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 U.S. 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 U.S. Code, at our 

website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm. Additional information 

about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 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. Additional information about other 
4

courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be 

accessed through the link below:

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your appeal to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website a t 

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.

______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board