Ronald M. Jordan, Jr. v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RONALD M. JORDAN, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2022-1986
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CB-7121-22-0005-V-1.
______________________
Decided: December 8, 2022
______________________
RONALD M. J ORDAN, J R., Joliet, IL, pro se.
CALVIN M. MORROW , Office of the General Counsel,
United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ALLISON J.
BOYLE, K ATHERINE MICHELLE SMITH .
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 22-1986 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2022

-- 1 of 4 --

JORDAN v. MSPB 2
Former United States Postal Service (“USPS”) em-
ployee Ronald M. Jordan Jr. filed an appeal to the United
States Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) from
an arbitrator’s decision that denied his grievance challeng-
ing his removal from his position by the USPS. The Board
found that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Jordan’s appeal.
Jordan v. U.S. Postal Serv., MSPB Docket No. CB-7121-22-
0005-V-1, Final Order (Apr. 15, 2022); Appx.1 1–7. Mr. Jor-
dan then petitioned this court for review. We conclude that
the petition for review was untimely filed and dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Jordan was a USPS Support Employee Sales and
Distribution Associate who was removed from his position
for failure to maintain a regular schedule. Mr. Jordan filed
a grievance challenging his removal. After holding a hear-
ing, the arbitrator denied Mr. Jordan’s grievance, finding
that the USPS had just cause to remove Mr. Jordan. Appx.
10–25. Mr. Jordan filed a request for review by the Board.
On April 15, 2022, the Board dismissed Mr. Jordan’s re-
quest for review of the arbitration decision for lack of juris-
diction. Appx. 2–3. Mr. Jordan then filed a petition for
review in this court, which was received on June 21, 2022.
D ISCUSSION
A petition for review of a Board decision must be filed
within sixty days after the Board’s entry of judgment. See
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (“Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, any petition for review [in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit] shall be filed within 60
days after the Board issues notice of the final order or de-
cision of the Board.”). A petition for review is deemed filed
only “when the required papers are received by the clerk of
1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed concurrently
with the government’s informal responsive brief.
Case: 22-1986 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2022

-- 2 of 4 --

JORDAN v. MSPB 3
the court.” Pinat v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 931 F.2d 1544, 1546
(Fed. Cir. 1991); Fed. R. App. P. 25(a) (“[F]iling may be ac-
complished by mail addressed to the clerk, but filing is not
timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time
fixed for filing.”).
Given that the Board’s entry of judgment was on April
15, 2022, Mr. Jordan’s petition for review was due on June
14, 2022. Mr. Jordan was provided notice of that require-
ment in the Board’s decision. Appx. 6. However, Mr. Jor-
dan’s petition was received by this court on June 21, 2022.
Respondent’s Informal Br. at 5. Mr. Jordan’s petition was
therefore filed after the jurisdictional filing period specified
in § 7703(b)(1)(A).
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdic-
tional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214
(2007); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S.
56, 61 (1982) (“It is well settled that the requirement of a
timely notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’”
(quoting Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Illinois, 434 U.S.
257, 264 (1978)); Sofarelli Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 716
F.2d 1395, 1396–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). An untimely petition
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the requirement
cannot be waived and is not subject to equitable tolling.
Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214 (“Because this Court has no au-
thority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional re-
quirements, use of the ‘unique circumstances’ doctrine is
illegitimate.”); see Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 515
F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“In Bowles, the Supreme
Court emphasized the jurisdictional nature of notices of ap-
peal and held that the jurisdictional rules lack equitable
exceptions.”). The same rule applies to petitions for review.
See Oja v. Dep’t of Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
Mr. Jordan does not address the timeliness of his peti-
tion for review in his brief, but rather addresses the merits
of the arbitrator’s decision. There is therefore no dispute
Case: 22-1986 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2022

-- 3 of 4 --

JORDAN v. MSPB 4
regarding the untimeliness of Mr. Jordan’s petition. As his
petition was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to review
the Board’s decision.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1986 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 12/08/2022

-- 4 of 4 --