Carl Craig Morris v. Department of Transportation

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CARL CRAIG MORRIS,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1055
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0752-17-0441-B-1.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2025
______________________
CARL CRAIG M ORRIS , Prince Frederick, MD, pro se.
N ELSON K UAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by ELIZABETH
MARIE H OSFORD, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 25-1055 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

MORRIS v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, P ROST , Circuit Judge, and
HALL , District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Dr. Carl Craig Morris petitions for review of a decision
of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) reversing
the United States Department of Transportation’s (agency)
removal of Dr. Morris. Because the Board’s decision is not
adverse to Dr. Morris, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Dr. Morris worked as a mathematical statistician
within the agency’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
S. Appx. 1.2 He was removed from the position, effective
March 23, 2017, for conduct unbecoming a federal em-
ployee based on his behavior during a meeting with his su-
pervisor on October 24, 2016. S. Appx. 1–2. Specifically,
the agency charged Dr. Morris with “deliberate efforts to
intimidate and cause anxiety to his supervisor,” causing
“disruption to the workplace.” S. Appx. 2 (cleaned up);
S. Appx. 33–34.
Dr. Morris timely appealed his removal to the Board
and raised several affirmative defenses, including retalia-
tion for prior equal employment activity, retaliation for
whistleblowing, and discrimination. S. Appx. 1–2. The ad-
ministrative judge (AJ) held the agency failed to show by
preponderant evidence Dr. Morris’ conduct during the Oc-
tober 24 meeting was a deliberate attempt to produce anx-
iety and intimidation. S. Appx. 2–9. Accordingly, the AJ
did not sustain the agency’s removal of Dr. Morris.
1 The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall, District Judge,
United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
sitting by designation.
2 “S. Appx.” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to Respondent’s Corrected Informal Brief.
Case: 25-1055 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

MORRIS v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3
S. Appx. 9. The AJ then considered and rejected Dr. Mor-
ris’ affirmative defenses. S. Appx. 9–17. Because the
agency failed to prove its basis for removal, the AJ ordered
the agency to restore Dr. Morris to his position with back
pay. S. Appx. 17.
Dr. Morris petitions for review. We have jurisdiction
over petitions for review of Board decisions pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) and 5 U.S.C. § 7703.
D ISCUSSION
We have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Board
only if there is a “final order or final decision” of the Board
that has “adversely affected or aggrieved” an employee.
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); 5 U.S.C. § 7703; Esparraguera v.
Dep’t of the Army, 981 F.3d 1328, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In
this case, Dr. Morris brought a successful challenge to the
agency’s decision to remove him from his position. On ap-
peal, he challenges the AJ’s rejection of his affirmative de-
fenses and argues he made protected disclosures under the
Whistleblower Protection Act. See, e.g., Pet’r’s Informal Br.
2–3. The AJ’s rejection of Dr. Morris’ affirmative defenses
does not make the decision adverse to him. The AJ ordered
the agency to reinstate Dr. Morris and awarded him back
pay. S. Appx. 17–18. Because Dr. Morris is not “adversely
affected or aggrieved” by the AJ’s decision, we lack juris-
diction over his petition. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). There are
no further remedies available to Dr. Morris in this action.
CONCLUSION
We dismiss Dr. Morris’ petition for lack of jurisdiction.3
DISMISSED
3 Dr. Morris’ motion to take judicial notice, ECF No.
13, is denied as moot.
Case: 25-1055 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

MORRIS v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1055 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2025

-- 4 of 4 --