Steele v. Department of Agriculture , 574 F. App'x 941 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-3055 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2014
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROBERT W. STEELE,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Respondent.
______________________
2014-3055
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH-0752-12-0680-L-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The United States Department of Agriculture moves
to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Robert
Steele has not responded.
After this court issued its mandate in one of his pre-
vious petitions, Mr. Steele filed a letter, received by this
court on January 2, 2014, in which he addresses his
demotion and reassignment but does not identify any
Case: 14-3055 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 08/05/2014
2 STEELE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
This court docketed the letter on January 6, 2014 as a
new petition for review. Subsequently, the MSPB submit-
ted the certified list, which identified three MSPB deci-
sions concerning Mr. Steele, dated December 5, 2012, May
16, 2013, and June 7, 2013.
The court agrees with the agency that Mr. Steele’s
submission must be dismissed. The Rules of Appellate
Procedure require that a petition properly designate the
order to be challenged. See Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(2)(C)
(requiring petition to “specify the order or part thereof to
be reviewed.”); City of Benton v. Nuclear Regulatory
Comm’n, 136 F.3d 824, 826 (D. C. Cir. 1998); Gottesman v.
Immigration Naturalization Servs., 33 F.3d 383, 388 (4th
Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional requirements of Rule 15(a) may
not be waived). Here, while Mr. Steele’s submission
indicates general dissatisfaction with the MSPB, it fails to
identify any decision of the MPSB from which he was
seeking review.
More importantly, to the extent that Mr. Steele’s
submission should be read as intending to petition from
one of the MSPB decisions identified in the certified list,
his petition would be untimely. “[A]ny petition for review
shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice
of the final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A). In order to be timely, a petition for re-
view must be received by the court within the filing
deadline. Pinat v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 931 F.2d 1544,
1546 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A). This
filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdiction-
al.” See Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, even if Mr. Steele intended to
appeal the most recently issued MSPB decision, approxi-
mately six months passed between that decision and his
letter to this court.
Accordingly,
Case: 14-3055 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 08/05/2014
STEELE v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted.
(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s24
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 5, 2014