Taylor v. Potter

Fifth Circuit

Taylor v. Potter

124 F. App'x 293

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 2005

Docket04-51168

StatusUnpublished

This text of 124 F. App'x 293 (Taylor v. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Potter, 124 F. App'x 293 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The district court correctly dismissed Taylor’s appeal of the Department of Labor’s disability determination because such a determination is not subject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)(2); see Concordia v. U.S.P.S., 581 F.2d 439, 443 (5th Cir.1978). Taylor has failed to show that the Department of Labor violated a clear statutory mandate and she raises no constitutional claim not suitable for determination in an administrative setting. See Woodruff v. United States, 954 F.2d 634, 639 (11th Cir.1992). Taylor is also prohibited from alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act in order to secure judicial review of the Department of Labour’s determination. See Meester v. Runyon, 149 F.3d 855, 857 (8th Cir.1998). AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

The district court correctly dismissed Taylor’s appeal of the Department of Labor’s disability determination because such a determination is not subject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)(2); see Concordia v. U.S.P.S., 581 F.2d 439, 443 (5th Cir.1978). Taylor has failed to show that the Department of Labor violated a clear statutory mandate and she raises no constitutional claim not suitable for determination in an administrative setting. See Woodruff v. United States, 954 F.2d 634, 639 (11th Cir.1992). Taylor is also prohibited from alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act in order to secure judicial review of the Department of Labour’s determination. See Meester v. Runyon, 149 F.3d 855, 857 (8th Cir.1998). AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F. App'x 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-potter-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack