Court Opinion

ID: 9891718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 16:02:00.944865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.716650
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1890    Document: 13      Page: 1    Filed: 10/19/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                 TUHIN K. CHAUDHURI,
                       Petitioner

                              v.

       DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                         2023-1890
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-1221-14-0553-W-2.
                 ______________________

   Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
    Having considered the parties’ responses to the court’s
 June 21, 2023, show cause order, we dismiss.
     On March 2, 2023, the Merit Systems Protection Board
 issued its final order denying Tuhin K. Chaudhuri’s re-
 quest for corrective action in his individual right of action
 appeal. The court received his petition on May 8, 2023,
 ECF No. 1-2 at 1 (bearing date stamp for “RECEIVED” on
 “May 08 2023”), 67 days after the Board’s final decision.
Case: 23-1890     Document: 13      Page: 2     Filed: 10/19/2023

 2                                            CHAUDHURI v. DVA

     Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), a petition for this
 court’s review of a final decision by the Board must be filed
 “within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final . . .
 decision.” This filing deadline is mandatory and jurisdic-
 tional, and thus cannot be waived or equitably tolled. Fe-
 dora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir.
 2017). Since filing “requires actual receipt by the court, not
 just timely mailing,” id.; see Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A), Dr.
 Chaudhuri missed the deadline, and we must therefore dis-
 miss for lack of jurisdiction.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                          FOR THE COURT

 October 19, 2023                          /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
      Date                                 Jarrett B. Perlow
                                           Clerk of Court