Jennieva Randall v. Department of Justice

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3141
JENNIEVA RANDALL,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board
in consolidated case nos. SF3443060187-B-3 and SF0752070497-1-3.
ON MOTION
Before GAJARSA, FRIEDMAN, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The court treats Jennieva Randall's letter, received by the court on March 24,
2009, as a motion for reconsideration of the court's previous rejection of her petition for
review as untimely.
Randall filed actions at the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging violations of
the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The
administrative judge denied corrective action and dismissed a second case. The Board
denied Randall's petition for review of the administrative judge's decision, and Randall
received the Board's final order denying review on January 11, 2009.

-- 1 of 2 --

The court initially received Randall's petition for review on March 13, 2009, or 62
days after Randall's receipt of the Board's final order. * A petition for review must be
received by the court within 60 days of receipt of the Board's final order. 5 U.S.C. §
7703(b)(1). To be timely filed, the petition must be received by this court on or before
the date that the petition is due. Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d
1544, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (petition is filed when received by this court; court
dismissed petition received nine days late). Because Randall's petition was not timely
received by this court, it must be dismissed. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007)
(the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement that
cannot be waived).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Randall's motion is denied and this petition for review is dismissed as
untimely filed.
Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
MAY - 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv
Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk 111.8eualliferom
attachment: copy of petition for review
cc: Jennieva Randall
Jeanne E. Davidson, Esq.
s8
MAY -5 2009
Jab
The court's March 13, 2009 letter previously sent to Randall incorrectly
stated that the petition for review had been received by the court on March 9, 2009. A
copy of the date-stamped petition for review is attached, showing that the court actually
received the petition on March 13, 2009, the date of the court's letter.
2009-3141 2

-- 2 of 2 --