Senia V. Edwards v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SENIA V. EDWARDS,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2022-2245
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH-844E-17-0332-I-1.
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In response to this court’s November 28, 2022, order to
show cause, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
urges dismissal of this petition for review as untimely. Se-
nia V. Edwards has not responded.
OPM denied Ms. Edwards’ application for disability re-
tirement benefits. Ms. Edwards appealed to the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board, which affirmed OPM’s denial in a
Case: 22-2245 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 2
final decision dated May 16, 2022.1 This court received Ms.
Edwards’ petition on September 14, 2022.2
The timely filing of a petition from a Board decision is
a jurisdictional requirement “and not subject to equitable
tolling.” See Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013,
1015 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A petition from a final decision
“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). Here, Ms. Edwards’ petition was received
outside of the 60-day filing deadline, including over 60 days
after the Board’s July 8, 2022, letter with the courtesy copy
of the decision. We therefore must dismiss.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
1 On July 7, 2022, the Board was informed that its
decision mailed to Ms. Edwards was returned undelivera-
ble. In a letter dated July 8, 2022, the Board informed Ms.
Edwards of its efforts to contact her and included a cour-
tesy copy of the May 16, 2022, final decision.
2 Although Ms. Edwards’ filings before this court in-
dicated that she raised a discrimination claim at the Board,
OPM responds without contradiction that Ms. Edwards did
not raise a claim at the Board that OPM’s benefits decision
was based on discrimination. See ECF No. 10-1 at 6–7.
Case: 22-2245 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

EDWARDS v. OPM 3
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
March 27, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-2245 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 03/27/2023

-- 3 of 3 --