Young v. MSPB

Opinion

Case: 25-1193 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TERESA M. YOUNG, Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________

2025-1193 ______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-1221-21-0296-W-1. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Teresa M. Young seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her appeal subject to auto- matic reinstatement. The court directed the parties to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as premature. The Board urges dismissal, while Ms. Young Case: 25-1193 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2025

moves to stay this matter pending the ongoing proceedings at the Board relative to her reinstated appeal. In general, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to “an ap- peal from a final order or final decision of the . . . Board,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (emphasis added), and “an order is final only when it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the [tribunal] to do but execute the judg- ment,” Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); cf. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, Ms. Young seeks review of a Board decision that is not final, as pro- ceedings are ongoing before the Board. Thus, we lack ju- risdiction over Ms. Young’s petition for review. See Strausbaugh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that dismissal with “the option of refiling [the Board appeal]” is not a “final, appealable or- der[]” (collecting cases)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for review is dismissed for lack of ju- risdiction. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs. (3) All pending motions are denied. FOR THE COURT

March 5, 2025 Date