Opinion
2024-1915
10-23-2024
MARTIN AKERMAN, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent
This order is nonprecedential.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-1221-22-0257-W-1.
Before PROST, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
In response to this court's show cause order, the respondent urges dismissal of this petition for review, while Martin Akerman asks this court to "exercise its jurisdiction to provide necessary oversight," ECF No. 25 at 7.
Mr. Akerman filed this Individual Right of Action appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board. The administrative judge dismissed the appeal without prejudice, subject to automatic refiling. On petition for review, the Board affirmed and forwarded the appeal to the regional office for docketing and adjudication.
This court has jurisdiction over only final decisions and orders from the Board. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As a general rule, an order is final only when it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute judgment." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A decision that forwards the matter and indicates further proceedings on the merits are required fails to end the litigation on the merits and is not a final decision of the Board that can be appealed. See Strausbaugh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 Fed.Appx. 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Taylor-Holmes v. Off. of Cook Cnty. Pub. Guardian, 503 F.3d 607, 609 (7th Cir. 2007); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976); and 9 Charles Alan Wright &Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 2367 (3d ed. 2008)).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.