Court Opinion

ID: 9407837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 16:01:49.862661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.423068
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1961     Document: 14    Page: 1   Filed: 07/10/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                  DAREK J. KITLINSKI,
                       Petitioner

                             v.

                DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
                         Respondent
                   ______________________

                         2023-1961
                   ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. SF-4324-15-0088-M-1.
                 ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

     Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
                        Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     The Department of Justice moves to dismiss the peti-
 tion for review as untimely. Darek J. Kitlinski opposes.
 We grant the motion and dismiss.
     Mr. Kitlinski appealed to the Merit Systems Protec-
 tion Board alleging a violation of his rights under the
Case: 23-1961      Document: 14      Page: 2     Filed: 07/10/2023

 2                                               KITLINSKI   v. DOJ

 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
 Rights Act of 1994. On March 23, 2023, the Board issued
 notice of its final decision dismissing Mr. Kitlinski’s
 appeal. ECF No. 5 at 60. On May 19, 2023, Mr. Kitlinski
 mailed his petition for review, ECF No. 12 at 8, which was
 not received by the court until May 24, 2023, ECF No. 1-2
 at 1 (stamped receipt date); see ECF No. 12 at 7.
      Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), “a petition to review a
 final order or final decision of the Board . . . . shall be filed
 within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final
 order or decision of the Board.” “[F]iling requires actual
 receipt by the court, not just timely mailing,” and this
 timeliness requirement is jurisdictional, which “precludes
 equitable exceptions.” Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848
 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see Fed. R. App.
 P. 25(a)(2)(A). Because Mr. Kitlinski’s petition was not
 filed within the 60-day statutory deadline, we must
 dismiss.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The petition for
 review is dismissed.
     (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                           FOR THE COURT

 July 10, 2023                             /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
     Date                                  Jarrett B. Perlow
                                           Clerk of Court