The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
24-1807•Janelle M. Coleman v. Merit Systems Protection Board
24-1807Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitNov 8, 2024
N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JANELLE M. COLEMAN,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1807
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DA-1221-22-0196-W-1.
______________________
Before P ROST , BRYSON, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Janelle M. Coleman seeks review of a decision of the
Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing her appeal
subject to automatic refiling and forwarding the appeal to
the regional office for further proceedings on the merits.1
1 The matter has been refiled as DA-1221-22-0196-
W-2.
Case: 24-1807 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2024
-- 1 of 2 --
COLEMAN v. MSPB 2
In response to this court’s July 8, 2024 order to show cause,
the Board urges dismissal while Ms. Coleman asks the
court to proceed with the case.
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 liti-
gation 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 F. App’x 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,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
November 8, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-1807 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2024
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.