Opinion

Brown v. Department of the Navy

  • 199 F. App'x 949
Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Filed
Sep 20, 2006
Status
Published
On the bench
Bryson, Clevenger, Lourie
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 54.6%

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Frances G. Brown moves to stay the briefing schedule pending disposition of her case by the Administrative Judge (AJ). We consider whether Brown’s petition for review of the June 26, 2006 decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in Brown v. Department of the Navy, 2006 MSPB 177 , 102 M.S.P.R. 377 , should be dismissed.

Brown filed an appeal seeking review of nine alleged personnel actions. The AJ dismissed Brown’s appeal. The AJ determined that some of the matters were not “personnel actions” under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (a), dismissed one claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and determined that review of the remaining matters was barred under the principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case. Brown petitioned the Board for review. The Board upheld certain determinations but held that the AJ had erred in determining that some of Brown’s claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case. The Board also disagreed with the AJ concerning whether certain matters qualified as “personnel actions” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (a). The Board remanded, and Brown seeks review of the Board’s remand order.

This court’s review of Board decisions is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703 . Section 7703(b)(1) provides that this court has jurisdiction to review final orders and decisions of the Board. We have stated that “an order remanding a matter to an administrative agency for further findings and proceedings is not final.” Cabot Corp. v. United States, 788 F.2d 1539, 1542 (Fed. Cir.1986); see also Caesar v. West, 195 F.3d 1373, 1374 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“Remands to administrative agencies, because they mark a continuation of the case, are not generally considered final for jurisdictional purposes”). Because the Boat'd remanded to the AJ for further proceedings, the Board’s decision is not final and thus we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. *

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*950 (1) The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) Brown’s motion to stay proceedings is moot.

If the AJ issues an adverse final decision at a later date, Brown may thereafter seek review of that decision.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.