
USCA1 Opinion

	











          July 23, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No.  96-1199

                                   JOHN T. ZERVAS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., 

                                Defendants, Appellees. 

                                 ____________________


                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon.  Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges. 
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            John T. Zervas on brief pro se. 
            ______________
            Donald  K. Stern,  United States  Attorney, and Sara  Miron Bloom,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellees. 


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________






                 Per Curiam.   The  district court dismissed the complaint
                 __________















            in this case, apparently both for lack of merit  and for want

            of jurisdiction. 

                 If Zervas'  complaint is  construed as  a claim  to have

            suffered  age discrimination,  the complaint was  time barred

            since  it  was filed  more than  180  days after  the alleged

            discriminatory act.    See Castro  v. United States,  775 F.2d
                                  ___ ______     _____________

            399,   403  (1st   Cir.    1985)  ("[I]n   lieu  of   pursuing

            administrative  relief,  [a  federal  employee  claiming  age

            discrimination]  may  proceed  directly to  federal  district

            court .   .   .   no  later  than  180  days  from  the  alleged

            discriminatory act.");  29 U.S.C.   633a(d).   If the complaint

            is  construed as  an  appeal of  the  decision by  the  Merit

            Systems Protection  Board denying  Zervas' claim to  have his

            sick leave  reinstated, the  complaint was not  only untimely

            but also filed  in the wrong  court.   5  U.S.C.    7703(b)(1)

            (appeal of final order of Board "shall be filed in the United

            States Court of Appeals for the Federal  Circuit . . .  within

            30  days after  the petitioner  received notice of  the final

            order of decision of the Board").   

                 Since abiding by a limitation period is a jurisdictional

            prerequisite  to  actions  against  the  federal  government,

            Lavery v. Marsh, 918 F.2d 1022, 1027 n.7 (1st Cir.  1990), the
            ______    _____

            district court  lacked  jurisdiction to  hear the  complaint,

            however construed. 

                 Affirmed. 
                 ________



                                         -2-







