UNITED STATES OF AME RICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD

KELVIN RICKY WATSON, JR

. ,

Appellant,

v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Agency. DOCKET NUMBER AT

- 1221

- 16

- 0371

- W

- 1

DATE: November 23, 2016



### THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Kelvin Ricky Watson, Jr

. , Esq uire
, Cary, North Carolina, pro se. Jeffrey Wilson
, Esq uire
, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

BEFORE
Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has pe titioned for review of the May 13, 2016 I nitial D ecision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 8, Initial Decision; Petition for Review

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential ord ers, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future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 Boa rd as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117 (c).2

(PFR) File , Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the petition for
review as settled. ¶2 After filing the petition for review, the parties submitted a document entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the appellant on August 15, 201 6, and by the agency on August 16, 2016. PFR File , Tabs 4

- 5. The document provides, among other things, for dism issing the petition for
review. Id

. ¶3 Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement b y the Board. See Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service
, 37 M.S.P.R. 146 , 149 (1988). We find here that the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they

un derstand the terms, and that they agree that the agreement will not be entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. PFR File , Tab 5, ¶ 2. ¶4 Accordingly, we find that dismissing the petition for review “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate
under these circumstances. ¶5 This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 )

.

NOTICE TO THE APPELL ANT REGARDING

YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS 2 You have the right to request review of this final decision by the U.S. Court of Ap peals for the Federal Circuit.

2 The initial decision did not afford the appellant notice of appeal rights under the Whistleblower Prot ection Enhancement Act of 2012. We have provided notice of such appeal rights herein

.3

The court must receive your request for review no la ter than 60 calendar days after the date of this order

. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismisse d. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management
, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If you want to request review of the Board’s decision concer ning your
claims of prohibited personnel practice s under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(8), (b)(9)(A)(i), (b)(9)(B), (b)(9)(C), or (b)(9)(D), but you do not want to challenge the Board’s disposition of any other claims of prohibited personnel practices, you may request review of this final decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The court of appeals must receive your petition for revie w within 60 days after the date of this
order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(1)(B) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. You may choose to request rev iew of the Board’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other court of appeals of competent jurisdiction, but not both. Once you choose to seek review in one court of appeals, you may be precluded from seeking review in any other court. If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the F ederal law that gives you this right. It is found in
title 5 of the U.S. Code, section 7703 ( 5 U.S.C. § 7703 ) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27, 2012). You may read this law as well as other sections of the U.S. Code, at our website, http://ww w.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm

. Additional information
about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’ s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov . Of pa rticular relevance is the court’s “ Guide
for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” whic h is contained within the court’ s Rules of Practice , and Forms 5, 6, and 11. Additional information about other4

courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website a t http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the s ervices provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C. ______________________________ Jennifer Everling Acting Clerk of the Board