From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardner v. Library of Congress

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Sep 26, 1985
774 F.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

Opinion

Undocketed No. FMCS83K/23185.

September 26, 1985.

Rhonda Ann Gardner, submitted pro se.

Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Sandra P. Spooner, Asst. Director and Helene M. Goldberg, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., submitted for respondent.

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, NIES, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

This Order was issued in unpublished form on September 9, 1985. It is converted to published form in response to respondent's motion filed September 23, 1985.

Petitioner has filed a direct appeal seeking review of her removal from employment with the Library of Congress. Because the Library is part of the Legislative Branch, its employees are not in the competitive service, 5 U.S.C. § 2102, and may not appeal adverse actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board).

Our jurisdiction to consider appeals of adverse actions is limited to those determined in final decisions of the Board. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); 7703(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). This court is therefore without jurisdiction to consider the present appeal. It is therefore

ORDERED:

Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted.


Summaries of

Gardner v. Library of Congress

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Sep 26, 1985
774 F.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Case details for

Gardner v. Library of Congress

Case Details

Full title:RHONDA ANN GARDNER, PETITIONER, v. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, RESPONDENT

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Date published: Sep 26, 1985

Citations

774 F.2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

Nieuwdorp v. Library of Congress

For this court to entertain Nieuwdorp's petition for review from an arbitrator's decision, we would have to…

Carter v. Library of Congress

An employee of the Library of Congress may not appeal adverse actions to the Board. Gardner v. Library of…