Hill v. MSPB, 14-3216 (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Number: 14-3216
Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-3216 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2014 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _ JIMMY R. HILL, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. _ 2014-3216 _ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT-3443-14-0778-I-1. _ ON MOTION _ ORDER The United States Postal Service (“USPS”) moves to reform the official caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) as the respondent, and
Summary: Case: 14-3216 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2014 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit _ JIMMY R. HILL, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. _ 2014-3216 _ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT-3443-14-0778-I-1. _ ON MOTION _ ORDER The United States Postal Service (“USPS”) moves to reform the official caption to designate the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) as the respondent, and ..
More
Case: 14-3216 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2014
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JIMMY R. HILL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
______________________
2014-3216
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-3443-14-0778-I-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
ORDER
The United States Postal Service (“USPS”) moves to
reform the official caption to designate the Merit Systems
Protection Board (“Board”) as the respondent, and for an
extension of time for the Board to file its response brief 21
days from the date of disposition of this motion. The USPS
states that Jimmy R. Hill opposes.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is desig-
nated as the respondent when the Board’s decision con-
Case: 14-3216 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 11/21/2014
2 HILL v. MSPB
cerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The
employing agency is designated as the respondent when the
Board reaches the merits of the underlying case. Here, the
Board dismissed Hill’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus,
the Board is the proper respondent in this petition for
review.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to reform the caption is granted. The
revised official caption is reflected above.
(2) The motion for an extension of time to file the re-
sponse brief is granted to the extent that the Board
should calculate the due date for its brief from the date of
filing of this order.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s21
Source: CourtListener