The opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
MATTHEW SHERIDAN, DOCKET NUMBER
Petitioner, CB-1205-25-0032-U-1
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL DATE: June 1, 2026
MANAGEMENT,
Agency,
and
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Matthew Sheridan , Frederick, Maryland, pro se.
Michele Bloom , Esquire, D. Black , Esquire, Eyana Esters , Esquire, and
Allison Kidd-Miller , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the Office of
Personnel Management.
Jennifer Smith , Esquire, and Susan M. Andorfer , Esquire,
Washington, D.C., for the Department of Health and Human Services.
BEFORE
Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman
James J. Woodruff II, Member
1
A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2
FINAL ORDER
On May 1, 2025, the petitioner requested that, pursuant to our authority
under 5 U.S.C. § 1204(f), we review whether the Department of Health and
Human Services’ issuance of a March 31, 2025 reduction-in-force notice, among
other things, violated the Office of Personnel Management’s regulations and
deprived him of due process. Request for Review (RFR) File, Tab 1 at 2. For the
reasons discussed below, we DISMISS this matter as withdrawn with prejudice to
refiling (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this petition).
While this matter was pending before the Board, the Clerk of the Board
issued a May 4, 2026 Order explaining that the petitioner “has been identified as
an interested person in another request for regulation review concerning the same
agency action, filed on May 2, 2025, through counsel.” RFR File, Tab 7 at 1.
That matter has been docketed as Interested RIF Employees–HHS II v. Office of
Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. CB-1205-25-0036-U-1 and is
currently pending before the Board. 2 The May 4, 2026 Order instructed the
petitioner to file a pleading “confirming whether he wishes to proceed with his
individually filed request for regulation review,” through the instant matter or
proceed through MSPB Docket No. CB-1205-25-0036-U-1, and withdraw his
individual matter. RFR File, Tab 7 at 3, n.2. In response, the petitioner stated
that he “voluntarily intend[ed] to withdraw [his] request for regulation review” in
this matter, MSPB Docket No. CB-1205-25-0032-U-1. RFR File, Tab 8 at 4. He
further stated that he understood that the “withdrawal is with prejudice,” and that
he “cannot refile [his] request with the Board.” Id.
In the context of an appeal of an adverse personnel action, the Board has
stated that an appellant’s relinquishment of her right to appeal to the Board must
be by clear, unequivocal, and decisive action. Cason v. Department of the Army,
2
MSPB Docket No. CB-1205-0036-U-1 is included in the consolidation, HHS RIF
Regulation Review Consolidation v. Office of Personnel Management , MSPB Docket
No. CF-1205-26-0122 U-1.
3
118 M.S.P.R. 58, ¶ 5 (2012); Leno v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
90 M.S.P.R. 614, ¶ 3 (2002). The Board has also stated that, absent unusual
circumstances, the withdrawal of an appeal is an act of finality that has the effect
of removing the matter from the Board’s jurisdiction. Pradier v. U.S. Postal
Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 495, ¶ 7 (2010); Leno, 90 M.S.P.R. 614, ¶ 3. We discern
no reason not to apply those principles in the context of a request for regulation
review. See 5 C.F.R. § 1203.1(b)(1) (stating that, where appropriate and unless
the Board’s regulations provide otherwise, the Board may apply the provisions of
5 C.F.R. part 1201, subpart B, to regulation review proceedings).
Here, the petitioner has clearly, unequivocally, and decisively withdrawn
his request for regulation review. Thus, finding that withdrawal is appropriate
under these circumstances, we dismiss this matter as withdrawn with prejudice to
refiling. 3 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this
proceeding. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1203.12(b)
(5 C.F.R. § 1203.12(b)).
FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
3
This decision has no effect on the petitioner’s request for regulation review, MSPB
Docket No. CB-1205-25-0036-U-1, that is part of the consolidation, MSPB Docket
No. CF-1205-26-0122-U-1. That matter will be decided in a separate decision.