Court Opinion

ID: 2780660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-02-19 23:00:25.88945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:27.070359
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                  MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DAVID M. HENDY,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         CH-315H-13-4605-I-2

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: February 19, 2015
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL O RDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

      Ron Ball, Esquire, Farmington, Utah, for the appellant.

      Michael M. McFatridge, Esquire, Danville, Illinois, for the agency.

      Lisa Lee, Chicago, Illinois, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                         Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
                         Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman
                            Mark A. Robbins, Member

*
   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
sign ificantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
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 Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                     2

                                      FINAL ORDER
¶1        The appellant has petitioned for review of the June 6, 2014 Initial Decision
     in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 9, Initial Decision; Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the petition for
     review as settled.
¶2        After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document
     entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the appellant on
     October 7, 2014, and by the agency on October 9, 2014. PFR File, Tab 6. The
     document provides, among other things, for the withdrawal of the petition for
     review. Id., Tabs 6-7.
¶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 by 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
     understand the terms, and that they agree that the agreement will not be entered
     into the record for enforcement by the Board. See PFR File, Tab 7 at 1.
           Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for review “with
     prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is
     appropriate under these circumstances.
¶4        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 APPELLANT REGARDING
                        YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
           You have the right to request review of this final decision by the United
     States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to
     the court at the following address:
                                                                                  3

                           United States Court of Appeals
                               for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                              Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later 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 dismissed. See Pinat v.
Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
         If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in
Title 5 of the United States 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 United
States     Code,    at   our   website,   http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode/htm.
Additional information is available at the court's website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov.
Of particular relevance is the court's "Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and
Appellants," which is contained within the court's Rules of Practice, and Forms 5,
6, and 11.
         If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for your court
appeal, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for a list of
attorneys who have expressed interest in providing pro bono representation for
Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the court. The Merit Systems
                                                                           4

Protection Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor
warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

FOR THE BOARD:                            ______________________________
                                          William D. Spencer
                                          Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.