Andrew Searcy, Jr. v. Office of Personnel Management

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANDREW SEARCY, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2023-1211
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in Nos. AT-3443-21-0202-I-1, AT-4324-21-0238-I-1,
and AT-3330-21-0237-I-1.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Andrew Searcy, Jr. has filed a petition for review of de-
cisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board. We dismiss
the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Searcy’s petition references: (1) MSPB No. AT-
0831-10-0380-I-1, which resulted in a final Board decision
on November 30, 2010; and (2) MSPB No. AT-4324-10-
0356-I-1, which ultimately resulted in an adverse final de-
cision that was affirmed on appeal in 2012. See Searcy v.
Case: 23-1211 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 12/29/2022

-- 1 of 2 --

SEARCY V. OPM 2
MSPB, 486 F. App’x 117 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Those cases are
long closed and not now subject to appeal.*
Mr. Searcy’s petition further identifies Nos. AT-3443-
21-0202-I-1, AT-4324-21-0238-I-1, and AT-3330-21-0237-I-
1. In each of those cases, Mr. Searcy has pending petitions
before the Board for review of an initial decision. The filing
of a timely petition for the Board’s review of the initial de-
cision renders the initial decision non-final for purposes of
our review, see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(a) (“The initial decision
will not become the Board’s final decision if within the time
limit for filing . . . any party files a petition for re-
view . . . .”). In the absence of a final Board decision, we
lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); Weed v. Soc.
Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) This matter is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
December 29, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
* This court has directed the Clerk “not to docket any
further papers by or on behalf of Mr. Searcy without first
referring them to a judge who will determine whether Mr.
Searcy is seeking to relitigate a closed case.” In re Searcy,
No. 2019-117, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2019).
Case: 23-1211 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 12/29/2022

-- 2 of 2 --