UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

RHODERICK DWIGHT HALL,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

AT-0752-14-0246-I-1

DATE: August 18, 2014

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL1

Rhoderick Dwight Hall, Temple, Georgia, pro se.

Earl L. Cotton, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which 

dismissed the appeal on the basis of res judicata. Generally, we grant petitions 

such as this one only when: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of 

material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute 

 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

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 Board 

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

or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the 

judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were 

not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and 

the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence 

or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not 

available when the record closed. See Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this 

appeal, and based on the following points and authorities, we conclude that the 

petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the 

petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as 

expressly modified by this Final Order, we AFFIRM the initial decision. 

¶2 This is the appellant’s fourth appeal in which he has claimed that the 

agency constructively suspended him between July 2009 and February 2011. 2

 See 

Hall v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-10-0435-I-1, Initial 

Decision (May 18, 2010); Hall v. U.S. Postal Service, AT-0752-10-0486-I-1,

Initial Decision (June 30, 2010); and Hall v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket 

No. AT-0752-11-0116-I-1, Initial Decision (Feb. 23, 2011). As the 

administrative judge correctly noted below, the initial decision in each of these 

cases became the Board’s final decision in that matter. Initial Appeal File (IAF), 

Tab 14, Initial Decision (ID); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. 

¶3 As the Board found in the previous appeals cited above, the appellant 

initiated his absence for the varying time periods at issue in each of those appeals

and, consequently, failed to establish that the agency constructively suspended 

him during the time at issue in this matter. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a 

valid, final judgment on the merits of an action bars a second action involving the 

 2 To the extent that the appellant addresses his separately-docketed restoration claim in 

the instant petition for review, we note that the Board issued an initial decision in that 

appeal, which became the Board’s final decision after neither party petitioned for its 

review. Hall v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. AT-0353-14-0247-I-1, Initial 

Decision (Mar. 12, 2014); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113. 
3

same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action. Peartree v. U.S. 

Postal Service, 66 M.S.P.R. 332, 337 (1995). Res judicata precludes parties from 

relitigating issues that were, or could have been, raised in the prior action, and is 

applicable if: (1) the prior judgment was rendered by a forum with competent 

jurisdiction; (2) the prior judgment was a final judgment on the merits; and 

(3) the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved in 

both cases. See id. The administrative judge correctly found that each of the 

above-listed criteria were met, and we agree that the instant appeal is barred by 

the doctrine of res judicata. 3

 

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS

You have the right to request further review of this final decision.

Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review

You may request review of this final decision on your discrimination claims by 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See Title 5 of the United 

States Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). If you submit your request by 

regular U.S. mail, the address of the EEOC is:

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit your request via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a 

signature, it must be addressed to:

 3 The administrative judge twice stated in the initial decision that the Board lacks 

jurisdiction over the appeal. ID at 1-2, 4. While we affirm that this appeal is barred by 

res judicata, we modify the initial decision to clarify that dismissal is not based upon a 

lack of Board jurisdiction. Rather, the principle of claim preclusion is the proper basis 

for the appeal’s dismissal. See Peartree, 66 M.S.P.R. at 337.
4

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, NE

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your 

receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative 

receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no later than 30 

calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful 

to file on time.

Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action

If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your 

discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your 

discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States 

district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with 

the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If 

you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order 

before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar 

days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to 

file on time. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, 

religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to 

representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of
5

prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 

29 U.S.C. § 794a.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

William D. Spencer

Clerk of the Board