NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RONALD M. JORDAN, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2022-1986

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CB-7121-22-0005-V-1.

______________________ 

Decided: December 8, 2022

______________________ 

RONALD M. JORDAN, JR., Joliet, IL, pro se. 

 CALVIN M. MORROW, Office of the General Counsel, 

United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON J.

BOYLE, KATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH. 

 ______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Case: 22-1986 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2022
2 JORDAN v. MSPB

Former United States Postal Service (“USPS”) employee Ronald M. Jordan Jr. filed an appeal to the United 

States Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) from 

an arbitrator’s decision that denied his grievance challenging his removal from his position by the USPS. The Board 

found that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Jordan’s appeal. 

Jordan v. U.S. Postal Serv., MSPB Docket No. CB-7121-22-

0005-V-1, Final Order (Apr. 15, 2022); Appx.1 1–7. Mr. Jordan then petitioned this court for review. We conclude that 

the petition for review was untimely filed and dismiss the 

petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Jordan was a USPS Support Employee Sales and 

Distribution Associate who was removed from his position

for failure to maintain a regular schedule. Mr. Jordan filed 

a grievance challenging his removal. After holding a hearing, the arbitrator denied Mr. Jordan’s grievance, finding 

that the USPS had just cause to remove Mr. Jordan. Appx. 

10–25. Mr. Jordan filed a request for review by the Board. 

On April 15, 2022, the Board dismissed Mr. Jordan’s request for review of the arbitration decision for lack of jurisdiction. Appx. 2–3. Mr. Jordan then filed a petition for 

review in this court, which was received on June 21, 2022. 

DISCUSSION

A petition for review of a Board decision must be filed 

within sixty days after the Board’s entry of judgment. See

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review [in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit] shall be filed within 60 

days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.”). A petition for review is deemed filed 

only “when the required papers are received by the clerk of 

1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed concurrently 

with the government’s informal responsive brief. 

Case: 22-1986 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2022
JORDAN v. MSPB 3

the court.” Pinat v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 931 F.2d 1544, 1546 

(Fed. Cir. 1991); Fed. R. App. P. 25(a) (“[F]iling may be accomplished by mail addressed to the clerk, but filing is not 

timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time 

fixed for filing.”). 

 Given that the Board’s entry of judgment was on April 

15, 2022, Mr. Jordan’s petition for review was due on June 

14, 2022. Mr. Jordan was provided notice of that requirement in the Board’s decision. Appx. 6. However, Mr. Jordan’s petition was received by this court on June 21, 2022. 

Respondent’s Informal Br. at 5. Mr. Jordan’s petition was 

therefore filed after the jurisdictional filing period specified 

in § 7703(b)(1)(A). 

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 

(2007); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 

56, 61 (1982) (“It is well settled that the requirement of a 

timely notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’” 

(quoting Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Illinois, 434 U.S. 

257, 264 (1978)); Sofarelli Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 716 

F.2d 1395, 1396–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). An untimely petition 

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the requirement 

cannot be waived and is not subject to equitable tolling. 

Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214 (“Because this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, use of the ‘unique circumstances’ doctrine is 

illegitimate.”); see Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 515 

F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“In Bowles, the Supreme 

Court emphasized the jurisdictional nature of notices of appeal and held that the jurisdictional rules lack equitable 

exceptions.”). The same rule applies to petitions for review. 

See Oja v. Dep’t of Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 

2005).

Mr. Jordan does not address the timeliness of his petition for review in his brief, but rather addresses the merits 

of the arbitrator’s decision. There is therefore no dispute 

Case: 22-1986 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2022
4 JORDAN v. MSPB

regarding the untimeliness of Mr. Jordan’s petition. As his

petition was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to review 

the Board’s decision. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-1986 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 12/08/2022