Charles L. Williams v. Merit Systems Protection Board

25-1858Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSep 10, 2025

Full text

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHARLES L. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1858
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in Nos. CH-0831-23-0390-I-1 and CH-0831-23-0390-
I-2.
______________________
Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
In response to the court’s order to show cause, the
Merit Systems Protection Board urges dismissal of Charles
L. Williams’s petition. Mr. Williams has not responded.
Mr. Williams filed an appeal at the Board concerning
annuity benefits. An initial decision dismissed that appeal
subject to automatic refiling. In a March 2025 order, the
Board denied Mr. Williams’s petition for review of that de-
cision and forwarded the matter to the regional office for
Case: 25-1858 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

WILLIAMS v. MSPB 2
adjudication. The matter was then redocketed under a new
appeal number (“I-2 Appeal”) and is currently proceeding.
On June 10, 2025, this court received a submission from
Mr. Williams construed as a petition for review.
This court’s jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to “final”
orders or decisions of the Board, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), i.e.,
a decision or order that “ends the litigation on the merits,”
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). The Board’s March 2025
order forwarding for further proceedings clearly failed to
end the litigation on the merits. See Strausbaugh v. Merit
Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010). And
no final decision in the I-2 Appeal has yet been issued. We
thus lack jurisdiction over Mr. Williams’s petition for re-
view.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
September 10, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1858 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2025

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.