Court Opinion

ID: 2929250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-14 22:00:16.856841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:08.379003
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     MICHAEL SMITH,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-531D-15-0493-I-1

                  v.

     NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND                        DATE: September 14, 2015
       SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
                  Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

           Kent A. Eiler, Esquire, Albany, New York, for the appellant.

           Dorothy Kerr, Greenbelt, Maryland, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                              Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
                                 Mark A. Robbins, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has petitioned for review of the April 30, 2015 initial
     decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 9; Petition for Review (PFR)

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     File (PFR), Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the appeal 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
     June 18, 2015, and by the agency on June 22, 2015. PFR File, Tab 3. The
     document provides, among other things, for the dismissal of the appeal. Id., ¶ 8.
¶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 3, ¶ 12.
¶4        Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for appeal “with
     prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is
     appropriate under these circumstances.
¶5        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:
                              United States Court of Appeals
                                  for the Federal Circuit
                                717 Madison Place, N.W.
                                 Washington, DC 20439
                                                                                        3

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 an appeal to the
United States 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.