Opinion
23-1049
05-23-2023
MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN, Petitioner, v. U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Respondents.
Martin Edwin Andersen, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrew Hunter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey Gauger, UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D.C.; Tameka MeShaun Collier, DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY, Arlington, Virginia, for Respondents.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 18, 2023
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merits Systems Protection Board. (DC-1221-19-0058-W-1)
Martin Edwin Andersen, Petitioner Pro Se.
Andrew Hunter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey Gauger, UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D.C.; Tameka MeShaun Collier, DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY, Arlington, Virginia, for Respondents.
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Martin Edwin Andersen seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board's (MSPB) order denying Andersen's petition for review of the administrative law judge's decision disposing of Andersen's whistleblower complaint against the Department of Defense (DOD). We have reviewed Andersen's informal brief and conclude that Andersen raises no meaningful challenge to the MSPB's dispositive holdings. Any such challenges are therefore now forfeited. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief."). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We grant the MSPB's motion to dismiss party, leaving the DOD as the sole respondent, see 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), and deny all other pending motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.