Opinion

Diane Walker v. Office of Personnel Management

Court
Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed
Jun 24, 2015
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

DIANE WALKER, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, DA-844E-13-1253-X-1

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: June 24, 2015

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

THIS FINAL O RDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

Diane Walker, Fresno, Texas, pro se.

Linnette Scott, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The administrative judge issued a January 20, 2015 compliance initial

decision granting the appellant’s petition for enforcement of the Board’s

March 24, 2014 order in the underlying appeal, and finding the agency in

*

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add

sign ificantly 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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

noncompliance with certain terms in the final order. See MSPB Docket No.

DA-844E-13-1253-I-1, Initial Appeal File, Tab 13, Initial Decision; MSPB

Docket No. DA-844E-13-1253-C-1, Compliance Appeal File, Tab 7, Compliance

Initial Decision. Thereafter, the parties filed a joint Stipulation and Settlement

signed and dated by the agency on April 23, 2015, and by the appellant on May 1,

2015, indicating that “all matters raised in the referenced enforcement action have

now been resolved to the mutual agreement and satisfaction of the parties . . . .”

See MSPB Docket No. DA-844E-13-1253-X-1, Compliance Referral File, Tab 5.

¶2 Finding that withdrawal is appropriate under these circumstances, we

DISMISS the petition for enforcement as withdrawn with prejudice to refiling.

The initial decision of the administrative judge is final. This is the Board’s final

decision in this matter. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 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

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).

3

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 your appeal to

the 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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.