Comulada v. Department of the Army

49 F. App'x 890
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedOctober 2, 2002
DocketNo. 02-3288
StatusPublished

This text of 49 F. App'x 890 (Comulada v. Department of the Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Comulada v. Department of the Army, 49 F. App'x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Opinion

ORDER

PROST, Circuit Judge.

The Department of the Army moves to summarily affirm the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing Chris E. Comulada’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Comulada has not responded and the Army states that Comulada “does not oppose the submission of this motion.”

Comulada sought review of the Army’s imposition of a 5-day suspension for failure to supervise a subordinate employee. Because “[tjhere is no statutory or regulatory authority under which the Board may exercise jurisdiction over an appeal from a suspension of 14 calendar days or less,” the administrative judge dismissed Comulada’s case for lack of jurisdiction, citing to 5 U.S.C. § 7503 and 5 C.F.R. § 752.203. Comulada petitioned for review.

The Army moves for summary affirmance. Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, inter alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994) (summarily affirming the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a complaint). We agree that the Board’s dismissal of Comulada’s appeal was correct and, indeed, mandated by statute and regulation. Because no substantial question exists regarding the outcome of the instant petition for review, the court summarily affirms the order of the Board.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roynell Joshua v. The United States, on Motion
17 F.3d 378 (Federal Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 F. App'x 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comulada-v-department-of-the-army-cafc-2002.