David M. Shipp v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
GT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID M. SHIPP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary,
Department of Health and Human
Services,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-35168
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01460-RAJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

GT/Research 09-35168 2
David Matthew Shipp, a former federal employee, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his action against the Department of Health
and Human Services (“Department”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings relevant to its
determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Autery v. United States, 424
F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir. 2005), and review de novo the district court’s legal
determination, see Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1428 (9th Cir. 1993). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shipp’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Shipp sought review of a decision of the Merit System
Protection Board (“MSPB”) that did not adjudicate the merits of Shipp’s
discrimination claims against the Department. See id. (“[O]nly the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit can review MSPB decisions in cases that do not
entail discrimination claims[.]”); Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1261-62 (9th Cir.
1998) (discussing importance of uniformity of MSPB-related case law).
Shipp’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny all pending motions.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --