Pamela D. Dinkler v. Office of Personnel Management

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3147
PAMELA D. DINKLER,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in
CH0831070409-1-1.
ON MOTION
Before GAJARSA, FRIEDMAN, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Pamela D. Dinkier moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submits
correspondence requesting that the court accept her untimely petition for review. The
court considers whether the petition should be dismissed.
On April 30, 2008, the Merit Systems Profection Board issued a final decision in
Dinkier v. Office of Pers. Mqmt., No. CH-0831-07-0409-1-1, specifying that its decision
was final and that any petition for review must be received by this court within 60
calendar days of receipt of the Board's decision. The Board's records reflect that

-- 1 of 2 --

Dinkier received the Board's decision on May 9, 2008. The court received Dinkler's
petition for review 62 days later, on July 10, 2008.*
A petition for review of a Board decision must be filed within 60 days of receipt of
the decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). The 60-day filing period is "statutory,
mandatory, [and] jurisdictional." Monzo v. Dept. of Transp. 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); see also Oia v. Department of the Army, 405 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2005) ("[c]ompliance with the filing deadline of 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) is a prerequisite to
our exercise of jurisdiction").
Because Dinkler's petition for review was received by this court two days late,
this court must dismiss Dinkler's petition as untimely.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for review is dismissed.
All pending motions are moot.
FOR THE COURT
MAY - 5 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly
Date Jan. Horbaly
Clerk
cc: Pamela D. Dinkier
Richard P. Schroeder, Esq.
s17
MAY -5 2009
JAN HUizetur
CLERK
The petition for review listed the docket number for an earlier petition of
Dinkler's and was originally filed under that number. However, upon review of the file,
the court determined that Dinkler's July 10, 2008 submission was a new petition for
review and docketed it as 2009-3147.
2009-3147 2

-- 2 of 2 --