Martin Akerman v. Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARTIN AKERMAN,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1914
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-1221-22-0445-W-1.
______________________
Before P ROST , BRYSON , and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In response to this court’s show cause order, the re-
spondent urges dismissal of this petition for review, while
Martin Akerman asks “for the Federal Circuit to review
this case,” ECF No. 23-1 at 1. Mr. Akerman also moves to
consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 2024-1915 and
strike the respondent’s response to the show cause order.
ECF No. 22.
Mr. Akerman filed this Individual Right of Action ap-
peal with the Merit Systems Protection Board. The
Case: 24-1914 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 1 of 2 --

AKERMAN v. MSPB 2
administrative judge dismissed the appeal without preju-
dice, subject to automatic refiling. On petition for review,
the Board affirmed and forwarded the appeal to the re-
gional office for docketing and adjudication.
This court has jurisdiction only over final decisions and
orders from the Board. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); Weed v.
Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As
a general rule, an order is final only when it “ends the liti-
gation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do
but execute judgment.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). A decision that forwards the matter and
indicates further proceedings on the merits are required
fails to end the litigation on the merits and is not a final
decision of the Board that can be appealed. See
Strausbaugh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Taylor-Holmes v. Off. of Cook Cnty.
Pub. Guardian, 503 F.3d 607, 609 (7th Cir. 2007); Borelli
v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951–52 (3d Cir. 1976); and
9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure, Civil § 2367 (3d ed. 2008)).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
October 23, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-1914 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2024

-- 2 of 2 --