Martin Akerman v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARTIN AKERMAN,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1915
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-1221-22-0257-W-1.
______________________
Before P ROST , BRYSON , and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In response to this court’s show cause order, the re-
spondent 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 ap-
peal with the Merit Systems Protection Board. The admin-
istrative judge dismissed the appeal without prejudice,
subject to automatic refiling. On petition for review, the
Case: 24-1915 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 1 of 2 --

AKERMAN v. MSPB 2
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 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 as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
October 23, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-1915 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 2 of 2 --