Young v. MSPB
This text of Young v. MSPB (Young v. MSPB) 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.
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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Young v. MSPB, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-mspb-cafc-2025.