Roger Elliott v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-3331
ROGER ELLIOTT,
Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Respondent.
Roger Elliott, of Church Hill, Tennessee, pro se.
Robert C. Bigler, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on
the brief were Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Kenneth M. Dintzer, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was
Barbara Sarshik, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, of Arlington,
Virginia.
Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board

-- 1 of 4 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-3331
ROGER ELLIOTT,
Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in DC0752990690-C-1.
__________________________
DECIDED: January 6, 2009
__________________________
Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Roger Elliott (“Elliott”) appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board (“Board”) dismissing his petition for enforcement. Elliott v. FDIC, No.
DC0752990690-C-1 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 4, 2008) (“2008 Decision”), review denied, Elliott v.
FDIC, No. DC0752990690-C-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 5, 2008). Because the Board’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law, we affirm.
Elliott worked as a Computer Specialist at the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (“FDIC” or “agency”) until his removal on June 18, 1999. He appealed his
removal to the Board, which sustained his removal in an initial decision dated November

-- 2 of 4 --

19, 1999. Elliott v. FDIC, No. DC0752990690-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 19, 1999) (“1999
Decision”). In reaching that decision, the Board sustained the agency’s charges that
Elliott (1) “provide[d] incorrect and false information with specific intent to defraud the
agency” and (2) “engaged in inappropriate or disrespectful conduct.” Id. at 7. The initial
decision became final on August 18, 2000. Elliott then challenged his removal in
several federal district courts, which ultimately dismissed his claims. After his claims
were dismissed, the FDIC issued an amended Standard Form 50 “Notification of
Personnel Action” (“SF-50”) on June 13, 2002 indicating the following reasons for
Elliott’s removal: “FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS, AND INAPPROPRIATE OR DISRESPECTFUL CONDUCT.” Five and a
half years later, on February 20, 2008, Elliott filed a petition for enforcement with the
Board, claiming that the amended SF-50 is “fraudulent and libelous.” The Board denied
Elliott’s petition. 2008 Decision at 3. That decision became final on August 5, 2008,
and Elliott timely appealed that decision to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the amended SF-50 correctly sets forth
the reasons for Elliott’s removal, which were previously sustained by the Board in its
1999 decision. The Board, in 2008, answered in the affirmative, finding that the
amended SF-50 correctly states the reasons for Elliott’s removal. 2008 Decision at 3.
We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it was (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures
required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).
2008-3331 2

-- 3 of 4 --

2008-3331 3
We see no error in the Board’s 2008 decision. In challenging the amended SF-
50 in this appeal, Elliott does not argue that the agency lacks the general authority to
issue or amend a former employee’s SF-50 to reflect the grounds for removal sustained
by the Board. Rather, his sole complaint is that the reasons for removal listed on the
amended SF-50 are “fraudulent and libelous.” The amended SF-50 lists two reasons
for Elliott’s removal. Those two reasons—“FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, AND INAPPROPRIATE OR DISRESPECTFUL
CONDUCT”—correspond nearly verbatim to the FDIC’s two charges sustained in the
Board’s 1999 decision: (1) “provid[ing] incorrect and false information with specific intent
to defraud the agency,” and (2) “engag[ing] in inappropriate or disrespectful conduct.”
1999 Decision at 7. Accordingly, the Board’s conclusion that the amended SF-50
correctly states the reasons for Elliott’s removal is supported by substantial evidence
and is not contrary to law.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

-- 4 of 4 --