Opinion

Todd A. Stark v. Office of Personnel Management

Court
Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed
Jan 28, 2016
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.9%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

TODD A. STARK, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, CH-844E-15-0638-I-1

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: January 28, 2016

MANAGEMENT,

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

Todd A. Stark, Mount Sterling, Kentucky, pro se.

Roxann Johnson, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the September 24, 2015

initial decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File, Tab 7; Petition for Review

(PFR) File, Tab 1. During later settlement discussions, the appellant decided to

withdraw the petition for review, and submitted a letter to that effect. PFR File,

*

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

Tabs 5-6. The appellant’s letter includes a statement signed by the agency’s

representative, declaring that the agency has no objection to the withdrawal of the

petition for review. PFR File, Tab 6. Finding that withdrawal is appropriate

under these circumstances, we DISMISS the petition for review as withdrawn

with prejudice to refiling.

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

final decision concerning the withdrawal of the petition for review. 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 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,

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

3

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.

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.