Francis D. Houston v. Norman P. Mason, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency

D.C. Circuit

Francis D. Houston v. Norman P. Mason, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency

267 F.2d 654, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 377, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3910

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided May 8, 1959·No. 14453_1·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Veterans Preference Eligible, was removed from his position as an appraiser in the Honolulu office of the Federal Housing Administration. The charges were specific and completely adequate to apprise the appellant of the nature of the proposed action. He made reply to the agency. In due course he waived a hearing. His separation from employment was affirmed by the Twelfth Civil Service Region and by the Board of Appeals and Review of the United States Civil Service Commission.

In his action in the District Court challenging his removal and demanding reinstatement and other relief, summary judgment was entered for the appellees. It is clear that appellant feels that he was ill advised in waiving a hearing. There is nothing to suggest that he had in anywise been overreached, or that there has been a denial of such procedural benefits as appellant might have been entitled to receive. Cf. Hargett v. Summerfield, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29, certiorari denied, 1957, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137; Wagner v. Higley, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 235 F.2d 518, certiorari denied, 1956, 352 U.S. 936, 77 S.Ct. 230, 1 L.Ed.2d 165.

Affirmed. 1

1

. The record is not sufficiently dear to predude a decision on the merits. Thus, we do not here dismiss.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a Veterans Preference Eligible, was removed from his position as an appraiser in the Honolulu office of the Federal Housing Administration. The charges were specific and completely adequate to apprise the appellant of the nature of the proposed action. He made reply to the agency. In due course he waived a hearing. His separation from employment was affirmed by the Twelfth Civil Service Region and by the Board of Appeals and Review of the United States Civil Service Commission.

In his action in the District Court challenging his removal and demanding reinstatement and other relief, summary judgment was entered for the appellees. It is clear that appellant feels that he was ill advised in waiving a hearing. There is nothing to suggest that he had in anywise been overreached, or that there has been a denial of such procedural benefits as appellant might have been entitled to receive. Cf. Hargett v. Summerfield, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29, certiorari denied, 1957, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137; Wagner v. Higley, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 235 F.2d 518, certiorari denied, 1956, 352 U.S. 936, 77 S.Ct. 230, 1 L.Ed.2d 165.

Affirmed. 1

1

. The record is not sufficiently dear to predude a decision on the merits. Thus, we do not here dismiss.

Francis D. Houston v. Norman P. Mason, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, 267 F.2d 654, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 377, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3910 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

267 F.2d 654 (Francis D. Houston v. Norman P. Mason, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related