Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
McDavis v MSPB (2011-3132)

McDavis v MSPB (2011-3132)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13,025 |Likes:
Published by FedSmith, Inc.

More info:

Published by: FedSmith, Inc. on Feb 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
N
OTE
: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit
 __________________________ MARITA C. MCDAVIS,
 Petitioner,
v.MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent.
 __________________________ 
2011-3132
 __________________________ 
Petition for review of the Merit Systems ProtectionBoard in MSPB Docket No. CH0752110065-I-1.
 ____________________________ 
Decided: January 25, 2012
 ____________________________ 
M
 ARITA 
C.
 
M
CDAVIS
, of Detroit, Michigan, pro se.S
 ARA 
B.
 
R
EARDEN
, Attorney, Office of the GeneralCounsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington,DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were J
 AMES
M.
 
E
ISENMANN
, General Counsel, and K 
EISHA 
D
 AWN
B
ELL
,Deputy General Counsel.
 __________________________ 
Before L
OURIE
, D
 YK 
and R
EYNA 
,
Circuit Judges
.
 
MCDAVIS
v.
MSPB
 2
P
ER
C
URIAM
.Marita McDavis seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) dis-missing her appeal for failure to prosecute.
See
 
McDavisv. Social Security Admin.
, No. CH0752110065-I-1(M.S.P.B. Mar. 23, 2011) (“
Final Order
”);
McDavis v.Social Security Admin.
, No. CH0752110065-I-1 (M.S.P.B.Jan. 24, 2011) (“
Initial Decision
”). Because the Board didnot abuse its discretion, we
affirm
.B
 ACKGROUND
 Marita McDavis was employed as a Paralegal Super-visor within the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).On October 24, 2010, the SSA demoted McDavis to aParalegal based on two charges: (1) that McDavis violated5 U.S.C. § 3310 by interviewing and recommending arelative for an SSA position; and (2) that McDavis dis-played a lack of candor when questioned about the eventsleading up to the first charge.McDavis appealed the demotion to the Board, and theadministrative judge (“AJ”) assigned to the appeal foundthat McDavis failed to comply with four consecutiveBoard orders and dismissed her appeal for failure toprosecute. At the start of the proceeding, the AJ issuedan Acknowledgement Order in October, 2010, requiringMcDavis to exchange discovery with SSA.
Initial Deci-sion
, at 2. Shortly thereafter, the AJ issued an orderdirecting McDavis to participate in a telephonic prehear-ing conference on January 10, 2011, and to submit pre-hearing submissions.
Id.
McDavis failed to participate inthe prehearing conference and failed to file her prehear-ing submissions.
Id.
The AJ then issued an order re-scheduling the prehearing conference and extending thedate for McDavis to submit prehearing submissions andthe factual basis for her affirmative defenses.
Id.
In the
 
MCDAVIS
v.
MSPB
 3
order, the AJ advised McDavis that failure to comply withthe order may result in sanctions including the dismissalof her appeal.
Id.
McDavis again failed to participate in the prehearingconference and failed to submit any of the required docu-ments.
Id.
In response, the AJ issued an order providingMcDavis a final opportunity to submit her documents andparticipate in the prehearing conference.
Id.
The orderwarned McDavis that the AJ intended to dismiss herappeal if she did not comply with the order.
Id.
 McDavis failed to participate in the prehearing con-ference and failed to submit any of the required docu-ments.
Id.
The AJ then dismissed McDavis’s appeal forfailure to prosecute, finding that she repeatedly failed tocomply with multiple Board orders, rendering it “impossi-ble to conduct discussions regarding matters related tothis appeal.”
Id.
at 3.McDavis petitioned for review by the full Board,which affirmed the AJ’s dismissal and concluded thatMcDavis failed to establish that she exercised due dili-gence in prosecuting her appeal.
Final Order
, at 4.McDavis appealed to this court, and we have jurisdictionpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).D
ISCUSSION
 The scope of our review in an appeal from a Board de-cision is limited. We can only set aside the Board’s deci-sion if it was “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2)obtained without procedures required by law, rule, orregulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported bysubstantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c);
see
 
also
 
 Briggsv. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
, 331 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir.2003).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->