This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions. Two arose from challenges to decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One came in a pro se appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The final opinion addressed an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released one Rule 36 summary affirmance, three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals, and one nonprecedential order granting summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order granting summary affirmance, as well as links to the Rule 36 judgment and dismissals.
Maddox v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Gary E. Maddox II appeals pro se a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, dismissing his amended complaint which sought relief for alleged mishandling of documents by the Supreme Court’s clerk’s office in connection with petitions for certiorari and rehearing. See Maddox v. United States, No. 24-742, 2024 WL 4867143 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 22, 2024) (“Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Muhleisen v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Shirley Muhleisen petitions for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), which affirmed the initial decision dismissing Ms. Muhleisen’s adverse action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Muhleisen v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DE-3443-20-0189-I-1, 2024 WL 4119194 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 6, 2024) (“Final Order”); Muhleisen v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. DE-3443-20-0189I-1, 2021 WL 1849295 (M.S.P.B. May 7, 2021) (App’x 8–20) (“Initial Decision”). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Oleinic v. Department of the Air Force (Nonprecedential)
Oleg Oleinic petitions for review of a final order by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that sustained his removal from employment with the Department of the Air Force (“agency”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Williamson v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Garland O. Williamson challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC”), which upheld the Board of Veteran’s Appeals’ (“Board”) dismissal of his claim to equitable relief under 38 U.S.C. § 503 for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Williamson contends that the dismissal is in error and submits that he is entitled to equitable relief under the plain language of the statute, as well as for clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) committed by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”) Regional Office (“RO”) and the Board. For the following reasons, we affirm the CAVC’s decision.
Lopez v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Arthur Lopez appeals from the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his case for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons provided herein, we grant the United States’s motion to summarily affirm.