This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Three of the opinions address appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fourth addresses a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The fifth affirms a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Coco v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Samuel Coco, a pro se veteran, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”).  The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ finding of no clear and unmistakable error in a rating decision denying Mr. Coco’s service-connection claim for tinnitus.  Because we lack jurisdiction to decide the issues that Mr. Coco raises, we dismiss his appeal.

Limbrick v. Merit Systems Protections Board (Nonprecedential)

Laura A. Limbrick appeals a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) that denied her petition for review and affirmed the Board’s initial decision in Limbrick v. Department of the Treasury, No. DA-0752-21-0293I-1, 2021 WL 3146401 (M.S.P.B. July 19, 2021) (Initial Decision), which dismissed Ms. Limbrick’s appeal to the Board as being untimely filed without good cause.  Limbrick v. Dep’t of the Treasury, No. DA-0752-21-0293-I-1, 2022 WL 1310834, at *1 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 27, 2022) (Final Order).  Because we do not believe the Board abused its discretion in considering Ms. Limbrick’s appeal to the Board to be untimely filed without good cause, we affirm.

Globokar v. NASA (Nonprecedential)

Mary Ann L. Globokar worked at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for over 30 years.  Shortly before she retired, she initiated a proceeding before the Merit Systems Protection Board in which she alleged that NASA had erroneously assigned her to the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) instead of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).  She asked the Board to take corrective action under the Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8331 note.  The Board denied her request, finding no error in the initial assignment.  Ms. Globokar appeals, arguing only that the Board erred when it denied her request to add evidence to the already-closed record.  We affirm the Board’s decision.

Greene v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Cedric Greene brought this action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seeking recovery for wrongs he alleged had been committed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The Claims Court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Greene v. United States, No. 22-1711, 2023 WL 3454821 (Fed. Cl. May 15, 2023) (Decision).  We affirm.

Chin-Young v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)

Christopher Chin-Young (petitioner), appearing pro se, petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB or Board) final decision dismissing the case as settled.  We affirm.

Rule 36 Judgments