Hamilton v. Merit System Protection Board

Federal Circuit

Hamilton v. Merit System Protection Board

101 F. App'x 342

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 2004

DocketNo. 03-3234

StatusPublished

This text of 101 F. App'x 342 (Hamilton v. Merit System Protection Board) 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

Hamilton v. Merit System Protection Board, 101 F. App'x 342 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Willie J. Hamilton seeks review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying as moot his appeal of the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) decision deeming his application for a disability retirement annuity as untimely filed. Hamilton v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DE844E030239-I-1 (MSPB May 27, 2003). Because OPM has rescinded its decision in that matter, and because no other matter is before us on this appeal, we affirm.

Hamilton avers that the board erred in dismissing his appeal as moot by failing to consider grievances under various whistle-blower protection laws. But these claims concern a different appeal before the board — namely, his case docketed as number DE1221990359-B-1. They do not, in any event, affect the propriety of the board’s decision in this matter. When OPM rescinded its decision concerning Hamilton’s timeliness of filing, the board was divested of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

Willie J. Hamilton seeks review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board denying as moot his appeal of the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) decision deeming his application for a disability retirement annuity as untimely filed. Hamilton v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DE844E030239-I-1 (MSPB May 27, 2003). Because OPM has rescinded its decision in that matter, and because no other matter is before us on this appeal, we affirm.

Hamilton avers that the board erred in dismissing his appeal as moot by failing to consider grievances under various whistle-blower protection laws. But these claims concern a different appeal before the board — namely, his case docketed as number DE1221990359-B-1. They do not, in any event, affect the propriety of the board’s decision in this matter. When OPM rescinded its decision concerning Hamilton’s timeliness of filing, the board was divested of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 F. App'x 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-merit-system-protection-board-cafc-2004.