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)
25-1193•Teresa M. Young v. Merit Systems Protection Board
25-1193Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitMar 5, 2025
N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TERESA M. YOUNG,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1193
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-1221-21-0296-W-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before T ARANTO, STOLL , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Teresa M. Young seeks review of the Merit Systems
Protection Board’s dismissal of her appeal subject to auto-
matic reinstatement. The court directed the parties to
show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as
premature. The Board urges dismissal, while Ms. Young
Case: 25-1193 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2025
-- 1 of 2 --
YOUNG v. MSPB 2
moves to stay this matter pending the ongoing proceedings
at the Board relative to her reinstated appeal.
In general, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to “an ap-
peal from a final order or final decision of the . . . Board,”
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (emphasis added), and “an order is
final only when it ends the litigation on the merits and
leaves nothing for the [tribunal] to do but execute the judg-
ment,” Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); cf. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu,
891 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, Ms. Young
seeks review of a Board decision that is not final, as pro-
ceedings are ongoing before the Board. Thus, we lack ju-
risdiction over Ms. Young’s petition for review. See
Strausbaugh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that dismissal with “the option of
refiling [the Board appeal]” is not a “final, appealable or-
der[]” (collecting cases)).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for review is dismissed for lack of ju-
risdiction.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
(3) All pending motions are denied.
March 5, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1193 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2025
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.