Case Name: Joshua J. ISRAEL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-10
Citations: 469 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 11-2947
Parties: Joshua J. ISRAEL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, Respondent.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
Joshua J. ISRAEL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, Respondent.
No. 11-2947.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 7, 2012.
Filed: May 10, 2012.
Joshua J. Israel, Shakopee, MN, pro se.
Janet R. Dunlop, Ronald Joseph Gott-lieb, Charles F. James, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joshua J. Israel filed an administrative complaint, alleging that his employer retaliated against him for engaging in activities protected under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. An administrative law judge recommended denying Israel's complaint. The United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board (ARB) reviewed the administrative law judge's recommendation and issued a final decision denying Israel's complaint. Israel petitions for review.
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. § 31105(d) (appellate court reviews ARB's decision pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act (APA)); 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 R & B Tramp., LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 618 F.3d 37, 44 (1st Cir.2010) (ARB's final decision is reviewed in accordance with APA). Accord ingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.