ORAM v. MSPB , No. 22-1736 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-1736 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2022 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CYRIL D. ORAM, JR., Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________ 2022-1736 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-4324-21-0450-I-1. ______________________ Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to the court’s June 27, 2022 order to show cause, the Merit Systems Protection Board urges dismissal of Cyril D. Oram, Jr.’s petition for review as premature. Mr. Oram has not filed a response. Mr. Oram filed an appeal at the Board from a decision of the Department of the Air Force withdrawing a job offer. At Mr. Oram’s request, the administrative judge on January 19, 2022 issued an order dismissing the appeal without prejudice to refiling by April 20, 2022. On April 20, 2022, Case: 22-1736 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 08/29/2022 2 ORAM v. MSPB Mr. Oram refiled his appeal. On April 23, 2022, this court received Mr. Oram’s petition to review the January 19, 2022 order. Since the docketing of this petition, the administrative judge has granted Mr. Oram’s second request to dismiss without prejudice, subject to automatic refiling “on or about October 10, 2022.” ECF No. 14, Appx 17–18. This court’s review of Board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); see also Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Board dismissals without prejudice are not final for purposes of judicial review in cases such as this where the petitioner requests the dismissal and the Board leaves the option of refiling. See Strausbaugh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Oram may petition this court for review after issuance of a final decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for review is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT August 29, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
