Case Name: James F. NEWPORT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Siemens Generation Services Company; Michael McCormick, President, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-30
Citations: 405 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 10-1572
Parties: James F. NEWPORT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Siemens Generation Services Company; Michael McCormick, President, Respondents.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
James F. NEWPORT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Siemens Generation Services Company; Michael McCormick, President, Respondents.
No. 10-1572.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2010.
Filed: Dec. 30, 2010.
James F. Newport, Blue Springs, MO, pro se.
Paul L. Frieden, Roger W. Wilkinson, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, Jeffrey P. Ray, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, James G. Brown Ford & Harrison, Orlando, FL, for Respondents.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Newport petitions for review of a final order of the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board ("ARB") dismissing his administrative appeal for failure to prosecute. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the ARB's decision is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to the law, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. See 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(4)(A) (this court reviews ARB's decision pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency decisions if they are found to be arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, or if unsupported by substantial evidence in record as whole); see also Allen v. Admin. Revieio Bd., 514 F.3d 468, 476 (5th Cir.2008) (ARB's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny all pending motions.