NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LONDER B. DAVIS,

Petitioner, 

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent. 

______________________ 

2015-3087

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-10-0023-C-1.

______________________ 

Decided: July 13, 2015

______________________ 

LONDER B. DAVIS, Dallas, TX, pro se.

SARA B. REARDEN, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
2 DAVIS v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Londer B. Davis petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that 

dismissed as untimely his petition for enforcement of a 

settlement agreement between him and the United States 

Postal Service (“agency”). Davis v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 

DA-0752-10-0023-C-1 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 3, 2015) (“Final 

Decision”). We affirm. 

DISCUSSION

I.

On October 13, 2009, Mr. Davis appealed to the Board 

from the action of the agency suspending him from his 

position for fifteen days. Subsequently, on December 18, 

2009, Mr. Davis and the agency entered into a settlement 

agreement. Under the agreement, the agency agreed to 

pay Mr. Davis back pay for a certain period of time, while 

Mr. Davis agreed to withdraw his appeal. On December 

21, 2009, the administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the 

appeal was assigned approved the settlement agreement 

and dismissed the appeal. At the same time, the AJ 

retained jurisdiction over the matter for enforcement 

purposes.

On August 12, 2014, Mr. Davis filed a petition for enforcement of the settlement agreement. In the petition he 

alleged that the agency had violated the terms of the 

agreement by failing to pay him back pay. On August 14, 

2014, the AJ issued an acknowledgment order. In the 

order, the AJ informed Mr. Davis that a petition for 

enforcement alleging breach of a settlement agreement 

must be filed within a reasonable time after the petitioning party becomes aware of the breach. The AJ also 

informed Mr. Davis that he had the burden of establishing that his enforcement petition was timely. See 5 C.F.R. 

§ 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B) (formerly 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(2)(ii)). 
 DAVIS v. MSPB 3

The AJ ordered Mr. Davis to file evidence and argument 

showing that his petition was timely filed or that good 

cause existed for the delay in filing. Responding to the 

acknowledgment order, the agency filed a motion to 

dismiss the petition for enforcement as untimely filed. 

Mr. Davis did not respond to the acknowledgment order 

or the motion to dismiss.

On October 17, 2014, the AJ issued an initial decision 

dismissing the petition for enforcement as untimely filed. 

Davis v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. DA-0752-10-0023-C-1 

(M.S.P.B. Oct. 17, 2014) (“Initial Decision”). After noting 

that Mr. Davis had failed to respond to the acknowledgment order or the agency’s motion to dismiss, the AJ 

found that Mr. Davis had filed his petition for enforcement more than four years after the parties entered into 

the settlement agreement, that the delay was significant, 

and that Mr. Davis had failed to provide any explanation 

for the delay. Id. at 3. Accordingly, the AJ determined 

that the enforcement petition was not timely filed and 

that Mr. Davis had failed to show good cause for the 

untimely filing. Id. The AJ therefore dismissed the 

petition.

On February 3, 2015, the Board denied Mr. Davis’s 

petition for review of the Initial Decision. In its decision, 

the Board noted that, in his petition for review, Mr. Davis 

did not state when he became aware of the alleged breach 

of the settlement agreement and that he did not argue 

that he had filed his petition for enforcement within a 

reasonable time thereafter. Final Decision at 3. “Moreover,” the Board stated, “the appellant does not dispute 

that he filed his petition for enforcement more than 4 

years after the parties’ 2009 settlement agreement.” Id. 

Mr. Davis has timely appealed the Final Decision. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
4 DAVIS v. MSPB

II.

Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of 

the Board is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision 

unless we find it to be (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); Kewley v. Dep’t 

of Health & Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 

1998).

III.

As the AJ stated in the acknowledgment order, Mr. 

Davis had the burden of proof concerning the timeliness of 

the filing of his petition for enforcement. He plainly failed 

to carry that burden. As both the AJ and the Board 

found, Mr. Davis failed to come forward with any explanation for the untimely filing of the petition. Moreover, 

on appeal, Mr. Davis does not point to any asserted error 

in the Board’s decision on the timeliness issue. Rather, he 

makes arguments relating to the agency’s action suspending him and its alleged breach of the settlement agreement. Thus, Mr. Davis has failed to demonstrate that the 

decision of the Board dismissing his petition for enforcement is unsupported by substantial evidence, is arbitrary 

or capricious, or is tainted by legal error.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the Final Decision of the 

Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

No Costs.