Williams v. Office of Personnel Management

District of Columbia

Williams v. Office of Personnel Management

983 F. Supp. 2d 153, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152024, 2013 WL 5724521

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedOctober 17, 2013

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-1584

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 983 F. Supp. 2d 153 (Williams v. Office of Personnel Management) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Office of Personnel Management, 983 F. Supp. 2d 153, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152024, 2013 WL 5724521 (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBERT L. WILKINS, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs in forma pauperis application and will dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal “at any time” jurisdiction is found wanting).

*154 Plaintiff, a resident of Norfolk, Virginia, sues the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”). She seeks judicial review of a final order of the MSPB, affirming OPM’s denial of survivor annuity benefits. Compl. at 1. The Civil Service Retirement Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8331 et seq., provides the exclusive remedy for adjudicating plaintiffs claim. Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63, 66 (D.C.Cir.2005). “That regime provides for adjudication of all claims by OPM, 5 U.S.C. § 8347(b), appeal of adverse decisions by OPM to the MSPB, id. § 8347(d)(1), and subsequent review of MSPB decisions in the Federal Circuit, id. § 7703(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).” Id. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBERT L. WILKINS, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs in forma pauperis application and will dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal “at any time” jurisdiction is found wanting).

*154 Plaintiff, a resident of Norfolk, Virginia, sues the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”). She seeks judicial review of a final order of the MSPB, affirming OPM’s denial of survivor annuity benefits. Compl. at 1. The Civil Service Retirement Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8331 et seq., provides the exclusive remedy for adjudicating plaintiffs claim. Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63, 66 (D.C.Cir.2005). “That regime provides for adjudication of all claims by OPM, 5 U.S.C. § 8347(b), appeal of adverse decisions by OPM to the MSPB, id. § 8347(d)(1), and subsequent review of MSPB decisions in the Federal Circuit, id. § 7703(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).” Id. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

983 F. Supp. 2d 153, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152024, 2013 WL 5724521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-office-of-personnel-management-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack