Lance P. McDermott v. United States Postal Service, Merit Systems Protection Board

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LANCE P. MCDERMOTT,
Plaintiff-Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, MERIT
SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Defendants-Respondents
______________________
2025-125, 2025-126
______________________
On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington in Nos. 2:24-
cv-01734-JLR and 2:24-cv-01943-JLR, Senior Judge James
L. Robart.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before T ARANTO, WALLACH , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Case: 25-125 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

MCDERMOTT v. USPS 2
Lance P. McDermott files petitions for permission to
appeal from district court proceedings. We consolidate the
petitions and dismiss.
Previously, Mr. McDermott sought this court’s review
of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decisions dismiss-
ing his appeals, which included allegations of discrimina-
tion. Because Mr. McDermott sought to bring “[c]ases of
discrimination,” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2), which we lack juris-
diction to review, we transferred to district court. See Perry
v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420, 437 (2017). Following
transfer, the district court dismissed, and Mr. McDermott’s
resulting notices of appeal have been docketed with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mr. McDermott has since filed these petitions.
There is no basis to grant Mr. McDermott’s petitions.
The district court certified no order for appeal, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b), (c)(1), nor is his “appeal [otherwise] within th[is]
court of appeals’ discretion,” Fed. R. App. P. 5(a)(1). Our
jurisdiction over district court appeals is also limited to
cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court
from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see
§ 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages
claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in
amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2).
Here, Mr. McDermott’s cases do not fall within that limited
subject matter jurisdiction, and to whatever extent
Mr. McDermott’s submissions could instead be construed
as notices of appeal, such appeals already have been dock-
eted in the appropriate regional circuit. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 41, 1291. Finally, to the extent Mr. McDermott again
seeks our direct review of the Board’s decisions, we have
already explained to him that we lack jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
Case: 25-125 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

MCDERMOTT v. USPS 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petitions are consolidated (the revised official cap-
tion is reflected in this order) and dismissed for lack of ju-
risdiction.
April 16, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-125 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2025

-- 3 of 3 --