Court Opinion

ID: 3170457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-19 20:00:14.609623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:23.704299
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ANGELA CHAMBERS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-0432-14-0442-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                         DATE: January 19, 2016
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

           Stacy J. Pintar-Mantey, Esquire, North Charleston, South Carolina, for
             the agency.

           Kelly Burchell, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

                                           BEFORE

                              Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
                                 Mark A. Robbins, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER
¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the April 17, 2014 initial
     decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 8, Initial Decision; Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the
     petition for review as settled.

     *
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

¶2        After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document
     entitled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by the appellant on
     November 4, 2014, and by the agency on November 5, 2014. PFR File, Tab 4.
     The document provides, among other things, for the dismissal of the petition for
     review. Id., ¶ 1.
¶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. PFR File, Tab 5. 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 U.S.
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your request to the
     court at the following address:
                                   U.S. 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,
                                                                                  3

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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Merit Systems 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.