NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ROBERT W. STEELE,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3055

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0752-12-0680-L-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The United States Department of Agriculture moves 

to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Robert 

Steele has not responded. 

After this court issued its mandate in one of his previous petitions, Mr. Steele filed a letter, received by this 

court on January 2, 2014, in which he addresses his

demotion and reassignment but does not identify any

Case: 14-3055 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2014
2 STEELE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). 

This court docketed the letter on January 6, 2014 as a 

new petition for review. Subsequently, the MSPB submitted the certified list, which identified three MSPB decisions concerning Mr. Steele, dated December 5, 2012, May 

16, 2013, and June 7, 2013. 

The court agrees with the agency that Mr. Steele’s 

submission must be dismissed. The Rules of Appellate 

Procedure require that a petition properly designate the 

order to be challenged. See Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(2)(C) 

(requiring petition to “specify the order or part thereof to 

be reviewed.”); City of Benton v. Nuclear Regulatory 

Comm’n, 136 F.3d 824, 826 (D. C. Cir. 1998); Gottesman v. 

Immigration Naturalization Servs., 33 F.3d 383, 388 (4th 

Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional requirements of Rule 15(a) may 

not be waived). Here, while Mr. Steele’s submission 

indicates general dissatisfaction with the MSPB, it fails to 

identify any decision of the MPSB from which he was 

seeking review. 

More importantly, to the extent that Mr. Steele’s 

submission should be read as intending to petition from

one of the MSPB decisions identified in the certified list, 

his petition would be untimely. “[A]ny petition for review 

shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice 

of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). In order to be timely, a petition for review must be received by the court within the filing 

deadline. Pinat v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 931 F.2d 1544, 

1546 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A). This 

filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” See Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 

(Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, even if Mr. Steele intended to 

appeal the most recently issued MSPB decision, approximately six months passed between that decision and his 

letter to this court. 

Accordingly, 

Case: 14-3055 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 08/05/2014
 STEELE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 3

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. 

(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s24

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 5, 2014

Case: 14-3055 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 08/05/2014