Robert Monzo, Jr. v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

735 F.2d 1335, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 15188
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedApril 6, 1984
DocketAppeal 84-741
StatusPublished
Cited by202 cases

This text of 735 F.2d 1335 (Robert Monzo, Jr. v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert Monzo, Jr. v. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 735 F.2d 1335, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 15188 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Opinion

ORDER

BENNETT, Circuit Judge.

Respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) (1982). The statute provides in relevant part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review must be filed within 30 days after the date the petitioner received notice of the final order or decision of the Board.

The MSPB order denying petitioner’s request for review was received by him on October 11, 1983, and by his attorney on October 14, 1983. The petition for review by this Court was received by the Clerk on November 14, 1983. Under the statute, the date of receipt by petitioner’s counsel is irrelevant where petitioner himself actually received notice. Receipt of notice by petitioner on October 11 triggered the statute of limitations and his appeal is late on its face. The 30-day period for appeal is statutory, mandatory, jurisdictional, and bars the claim here. Ramos v. United States, 683 F.2d 396 (Ct.Cl.1982). Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows three extra days after “service of a paper” by mail, is not relevant to this case where the statute speaks of notice. Cf . FED.R.APP.P. 25(a).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Allen v. MSPB
Federal Circuit, 2018
Fedora v. MSPB
Federal Circuit, 2017
Brenndoerfer v. United States Postal Service
693 F. App'x 904 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Fedora v. Merit Systems Protection Board
848 F.3d 1013 (Federal Circuit, 2017)
Jones v. Department of Health & Human Services
834 F.3d 1361 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Young v. United States Postal Service
628 F. App'x 750 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Hicks v. USPS
Federal Circuit, 2014
Reynolds v. Department of the Army
581 F. App'x 902 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Baumgarten v. Department of Army
576 F. App'x 1001 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Steele v. Department of Agriculture
574 F. App'x 941 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Hinds v. Department of Homeland Security
568 F. App'x 888 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Cross v. Office of Personnel Management
574 F. App'x 929 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Baumgarten v. Department of the Army
567 F. App'x 964 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Cross v. Opm
Federal Circuit, 2014
Penn v. Department of Defense
564 F. App'x 1027 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Rosario-Fabregas v. Department of the Army
564 F. App'x 583 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Franklin v. Department of Veterans Affairs
562 F. App'x 970 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Nesbary v. Department of the Treasury
559 F. App'x 1031 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Cangemi v. Office of Personnel Management
560 F. App'x 975 (Federal Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
735 F.2d 1335, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 15188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-monzo-jr-v-department-of-transportation-federal-aviation-cafc-1984.