This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential orders. Three grant summary affirmance in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and three dismissal appeals. Here are the introductions to the summary affirmances and links to the dismissals.
Adams v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
As in his prior appeals, Mr. Adams’ challenge to the revocation of his security clearance here does not allege that he was affected by an action appealable to the Board. Hence, this is not a “[c]ase[] of discrimination” that belongs in district court. Summary affirmance is likewise appropriate here since there is no non-frivolous basis for the assertion of Board jurisdiction. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (finding summary affirmance appropriate where “no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists” (citation omitted)).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The decision of the Board is summarily affirmed.
(2) Any pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs
Adams v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
We agree with the government that it further follows that summary affirmance is appropriate here since there is no non-frivolous basis for the assertion of Board jurisdiction. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (finding summary affirmance appropriate where “no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” (citation omitted))
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The decision of the Board is summarily affirmed.
(2) Any pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Adams v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
We agree with the Board that the same result is warranted in this matter. As in his prior appeals, Mr. Adams’ challenge to the agency’s revocation of his security clearance here does not allege that he was affected by an action appealable to the Board. Hence, this is not a “[c]ase[] of discrimination” that belongs in district court. Summary affirmance is likewise appropriate here since there is no non-frivolous basis for the assertion of Board jurisdiction. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (finding summary affirmance appropriate where “no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” (citation omitted)).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The decision of the Board underlying Appeal Nos. 2023-1678 and 2023-1698 is summarily affirmed, and each side shall bear its own costs for those two appeals.
(2) Any pending motions in these appeals are denied as moot.