This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Both opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The first order remands a case to the Central District of California. The second transfers a case to the Southern District of Ohio. The last two orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the remaining orders.
Santos v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nonprecedential)
Mr. Fernando Santos petitions for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision affirming the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (“NASA”) decision to remove Mr. Santos from his position as Mechanical Engineer, GS-0830-13. Santos v. NASA, No. AT-0432-19- 0074-M-1, 2022 WL 509262 (M.S.P.B. Feb. 17, 2022) (“Decision”) (J.A. 40–772). The Board’s decision followed a 2021 Federal Circuit decision, Santos v. NASA, 990 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021), that vacated an earlier Board decision, Santos v. NASA, No. AT-0432-19-0074-I-1, 2019 WL 2176543 (M.S.P.B. May 21, 2019) (J.A. 1–39), and remanded for further proceedings. For the reasons below, we affirm.
Levinson v. Social Security Administration (Nonprecedential)
Michael L. Levinson, appearing pro se, challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision that the Social Security Administration proved its charges of misconduct and that good cause existed for removal from his position as an administrative law judge. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Epistar Corporation v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC notifies the court that the parties have executed an agreement to settle this case and moves unopposed to remand “for the purpose of seeking vacatur of the Markman Order and final judgment from the district court.” Mot. at 4.
Boyd v. Department of the Interior (Nonprecedential Order)
Jason Boyd filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board challenging his removal from federal service and raising, in relevant part, an affirmative defense of discrimination. The Board’s final decision affirmed his removal. He petitioned this court for review and his filings indicate that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimination claim. ECF No. 4 at 1–3; ECF No. 5-1 at 2–3; ECF No. 1-3 at 35. Responding to this court’s show cause order, each party responds that the appropriate forum for this case is the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.