N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ROBERT W. STEELE, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU LTURE, Respondent.

______________________

2014

- 3055

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH

- 0752

- 12

- 0680 -L- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

The United States Department of Agriculture moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdic tion. Robert
Steele has not respond ed.

After this court issued its mandate in one of his pr evious petition s , 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: 08/05/2014STEELE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU LTURE 2

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 submi tted the cert ified list, which identified three MSPB dec ision s 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); Gott esman 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 s ubmission
indicates general dissatisfaction with the MSPB

, it fails to identify any decis ion of the MPSB from which he was seeking review.

More importantly , to the extent that Mr. Steele ’s
submission should be read as intend ing to petition from
one of the MSPB decisions identified in the certi fied 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). I n order to be timely, a petition for r eview must be received by the court within the filing
de adline. 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] jurisdictio nal.” See Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp. , 735 F. 2 d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, e v en if Mr. Steele intended to

app eal the most recently issued MSPB decision, approx imately six months passed between that decision and his
letter to this court.

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

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.

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

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/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