# Robert Donaldson v. Merit Systems Protection Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · December 14, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3162240

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 14, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3162240

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1694

ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent,

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Intervenor.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merit Systems
Protection Board. (DC-1221-12-0356-B-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Donnell Donaldson, Petitioner Pro Se. Katherine Michelle
Smith, U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent. Joshua Ethan Kurland, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Robert Donnell Donaldson seeks review of the Merit Systems

Protection Board’s order dismissing his whistleblower

retaliation appeal. See 5 U.S.C.A. § 7703(b)(1)(B) (West Supp.

2015). Our review of the record discloses that the Board did

not err in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over

Donaldson’s appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review for the reasons stated by the Board. Donaldson v. Dep’t

of Homeland Sec., No. DC-1221-12-0356-B-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 16,

2014). We further deny Donaldson’s motions for summary

disposition, to strike the Board’s entire brief, and to verify

the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3162240. Public record. Not legal advice.