Case Name: Alfranzo T. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-06
Citations: 221 F. App'x 995
Docket Number: No. 2007-3057
Parties: Alfranzo T. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 995–995

Head Matter:
Alfranzo T. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.
No. 2007-3057.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
April 6, 2007.
Alfranzo T. Davis, of Louisville, Kentucky, pro se.
Joyce G. Friedman, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were B. Chad Bungard, General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel, Deputy General Counsel, and Rosalyn L. Wilcots, Acting Associate General Counsel.
Before MAYER, RADER, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS, District Judge .
Honorable Marvin Garbis, Sr. District Judge, United States District Court of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Alfranzo T. Davis appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, dismissing his petition as untimely filed. Davis v. U.S. Postal Serv., 104 M.S.P.R. 265 (M.S.P.B.2006). We affirm.
Davis was required to file his board appeal within 30 days of receiving notice of the Postal Service's decision to remove him, or to show good cause why he was unable to timely file. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12, 1201.22. Davis, however, filed more than 30 days after receiving the agency's decision letter, and he failed to present the board with evidence of good cause. He did not argue before it that the medical records he now submits established good cause; and to the extent he so argues to this court, we do not infer good cause from them. Finally, Davis' request that the board consider the date his grievance was resolved in determining when his 30 days began to run is without merit. His grievance was a separate proceeding, and does not affect the deadlines under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22.