NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

JAMES J. STANLEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3195 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. SF0752100806-I-1. 

__________________________ 

Decided: January 17, 2012 

__________________________ 

JAMES J. STANLEY, of San Bernardino, California, pro 

se. 

SARA B. REARDEN, Attorney, Office of the General 

Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, 

DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were JAMES M.

EISENMANN, General Counsel, and KEISHA DAWN BELL, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

__________________________ 
STANLEY v. MSPB 2

Before LOURIE, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

James J. Stanley appeals the decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his petition for review as untimely. For the reasons set forth 

below, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

On June 29, 2010, Mr. Stanley filed an appeal with 

the Board from the Department of Veterans Affairs 

employment action removing him from his position of 

Materials Handler. The administrative judge affirmed 

the agency’s decision to remove Mr. Stanley in an initial 

decision on October 22, 2010. Stanley v. Dep’t of Vet. 

Affairs, SF0752100806-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 22, 2010) (“Initial Decision”). 

On October 22, 2010, the Initial Decision was sent to 

Mr. Stanley by U.S. Mail and to his representative, Phillip Haynes, by electronic mail. In the Initial Decision, the 

administrative judge stated that the decision “would 

become final on November 26, 2010, unless a petition for 

review is filed by that date or the Board reopens the case 

on its own motion.” Initial Decision 12. 

Mr. Stanley did not file a petition for review until December 1, 2010. On June 16, 2011, the Board issued a 

final non-precedential order dismissing Mr. Stanley’s 

petition for review as untimely filed with no showing of 

good cause for the delay. Stanley v. Dep’t of Vet. Affairs, 

SF0752100806-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 16, 2011). In its decision, the Board noted that the certificate of service 

showed that Mr. Haynes was served electronically on 

October 22, 2010. Under the Board’s regulations, docu-
3 STANLEY v. MSPB

ments served electronically are presumed to have been 

received on the day of electronic submission. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.14(m)(2). Accordingly, the Board found that Mr. 

Haynes received the Initial Decision on October 22, 2010. 

Because service on a party’s representative—here, Mr. 

Haynes—is imputed to the party, the Board concluded 

that Mr. Stanley also received the Initial Decision on 

October 22, 2010. The Board further found that Mr. 

Stanley had not shown good cause for missing the filing 

deadline and dismissed his petition for review as untimely. Mr. Stanley has appealed. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). 

II. DISCUSSION

This court’s review of a decision of the Board is limited by statute. 5 U.S.C. §7703(c); O’Neill v. Office of 

Pers. Mgm’t, 76 F.3d 363, 364-65 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We 

may reverse a decision of the Board only if it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not 

in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures 

required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; 

or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(c). 

On appeal, Mr. Stanley does not, in his opening brief, 

address the Board’s dismissal of his petition for review as 

untimely but rather reargues the merits of his underlying 

adverse employment action claim. The only issue before 

this court, however, is whether the Board abused its 

discretion in declining to waive its regulatory time limit 

for filing a petition for review. In his memorandum in 

lieu of oral argument, Mr. Stanley argued that Mr. 

Haynes had represented to him that his petition for 

review was timely filed an that he was unaware that Mr. 
STANLEY v. MSPB 4

Haynes had not filed his petition for review by the deadline. 

The Board will waive its time limit for filing a petition 

for review only upon a showing of good cause. 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.114(f). “[W]hether the regulatory time limit for an 

appeal should be waived based upon a showing of good 

cause is a matter committed to the Board’s discretion and 

this court will not substitute its own judgment for that of 

the Board.” Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 966 F.2d 

650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). Here, the Board 

found that Mr. Stanley’s appeal was untimely and that he 

had not demonstrated good cause for missing the filing 

deadline. Although Mr. Stanley may have relied on the 

statements of his representative who untimely filed his 

petition for review, such reliance is not a basis upon 

which to establish good cause for his delay in filing. See, 

e.g., Harris v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 10 F. App’x 918, 920 

(Fed. Cir. 2001). Based on the deference we afford to the 

Board, we see no reason to reverse the Board’s decision. 

Consequently, the decision of the Board is affirmed. 

COSTS

 Each party shall bear its own costs. 

AFFIRMED