Joseph Cangemi v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOSEPH CANGEMI,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
______________________
2014-3039
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT0845120495-1-2.
______________________
Before N EWMAN, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The parties have responded to this court's order re-
quiring the parties to show cause why this petition should
not be dismissed as untimely.
On August 9, 2013, the Merit Systems Protection
Board issued a final order determining that Joseph
Cangemi was not entitled to a waiver of overpayment of
annuity benefits. The court received his petition for
review on November 5, 2013; 88 days after the Board
issued its decision. Cangemi asserts, inter alia, that mail
Case: 14-3039 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 03/25/2014

-- 1 of 2 --

CANGEMI v. OPM 2
service is slow and that he was trying to obtain new
evidence.
Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), which provides in relevant part that
“[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any peti-
tion 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). The filing period is
“statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional” and the court
does not have the authority to waive the requirement.
Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
1984); Pinat v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 931 F.2d 1544, 1545
(Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2).
Because Cangemi’s petition seeking review of the final
order was received outside of the statutory deadline for
filing the petition, we must dismiss the petition.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s26
Case: 14-3039 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 03/25/2014

-- 2 of 2 --