Tanner v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Federal Circuit

Tanner v. Merit Systems Protection Board

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedAugust 26, 2010

Docket2010-3157

StatusUnpublished

This text of Tanner v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Tanner v. Merit Systems 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

Tanner v. Merit Systems Protection Board, (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit CAS SANDRA TANNER, Petiti0ner, V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. 2010-3157 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. DAO752090025-I-1. ON MOTION ORDER We construe the petitioner’s notice of docketing as a motion to reform the official caption. To the extent that the petitioner is seeking to reform the caption to designate the Ofi:ice of Pers0nal Manage- ment as a respondent, that request is denied.' The Merit * If petitioner is attempting to inform the court that her last name has changed to "Young," she should more clearly indicate that in writing to the court.

TANNER v. MSPB 2 Systen1s Protection Board's decision did not involve the Office of Personnel Management as a party Further, because the Board dismissed the underlying appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we designate the Board as the respon- dent. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2). Accordingly, IT ls ORDERED THAT: The motion is denied. The revised official caption is reflected above FoR THE CoURT AUG 25 wm /S/ Jan H@rba1y Date J an H0rbaly Clerk cc: Cas Sandra T:-inner ma °°UF§£S&§P, Antonia R. Soares, Esq. mg 'Lc|?;l[,8g'°R B. Chad B gard, Esq. ““ ms 2ev2o1u s19 1AN HORBAL¥ CLERK

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

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit CAS SANDRA TANNER, Petiti0ner, V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. 2010-3157 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. DAO752090025-I-1. ON MOTION ORDER We construe the petitioner’s notice of docketing as a motion to reform the official caption. To the extent that the petitioner is seeking to reform the caption to designate the Ofi:ice of Pers0nal Manage- ment as a respondent, that request is denied.' The Merit * If petitioner is attempting to inform the court that her last name has changed to "Young," she should more clearly indicate that in writing to the court.

TANNER v. MSPB 2 Systen1s Protection Board's decision did not involve the Office of Personnel Management as a party Further, because the Board dismissed the underlying appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we designate the Board as the respon- dent. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2). Accordingly, IT ls ORDERED THAT: The motion is denied. The revised official caption is reflected above FoR THE CoURT AUG 25 wm /S/ Jan H@rba1y Date J an H0rbaly Clerk cc: Cas Sandra T:-inner ma °°UF§£S&§P, Antonia R. Soares, Esq. mg 'Lc|?;l[,8g'°R B. Chad B gard, Esq. ““ ms 2ev2o1u s19 1AN HORBAL¥ CLERK

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tanner v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanner-v-merit-systems-protection-board-cafc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack