Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03121/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emese Gloria Jackson
Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Penny Nielsen
Intervenor
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EMESE GLORIA JACKSON,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

PENNY NIELSEN,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2015-3121

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0831-14-0699-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: October 9, 2015

______________________ 

 EMESE GLORIA JACKSON, Birmingham, AL, pro se.

 MICHAEL ANTON CARNEY, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

 PENNY NIELSEN, Altamonte Springs, FL, pro se. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-3121 Document: 43-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2015
2 JACKSON v. MSPB

Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Emese Gloria Jackson petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“Board”) decision affirming 

the dismissal of her appeal after Ms. Jackson, through her 

attorney, voluntarily withdrew her appeal. Because we 

discern no legal or procedural error, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Jackson filed an application with the Office of 

Personnel Management (“OPM”) requesting death benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS)

based on the death of Donald Martin. OPM issued a final 

decision denying Ms. Jackson’s claim because Ms. Jackson 

was not Mr. Martin’s designated beneficiary.

Ms. Jackson appealed OPM’s decision to the Board. 

Ms. Jackson presented evidence purporting to show that 

Mr. Martin intended to name her as the beneficiary. 

While her appeal was pending, Ms. Jackson, through her 

attorney, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Administrative Judge granted Ms. Jackson’s motion after finding her withdrawal “clear, unequivocal, and decisive.” J.A. 

6–7. 

Ms. Jackson thereafter filed a pro se petition for review with the Board. Ms. Jackson’s petition addressed the 

merits of OPM’s final decision but did not address the 

motion to dismiss her appeal, explain why dismissal was 

unwarranted, or suggest that the motion to dismiss was 

filed due to error or misrepresentation by her representative or OPM. The Board therefore denied Ms. Jackson’s 

petition for review and affirmed the Administrative 

Judge’s initial decision. The Board explained that a “clear, 

decisive, and unequivocal” withdrawal of an appeal is an 

“act of finality which removes the appeal from the Board’s 

jurisdiction.” J.A. 3 (citing Page v. Dep’t. of Trans., 110 

Case: 15-3121 Document: 43-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/09/2015
JACKSON v. MSPB 3

M.S.P.R. 492, ¶ 5 (2009). Ms. Jackson’s appeal to this 

court followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). 

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a decision 

of the Board is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision unless it was “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) 

obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or 

regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by 

substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). 

We find no error in the Board’s decision to affirm the 

dismissal of Ms. Jackson’s appeal. Ms. Jackson signed a 

document designating her attorney as her representative 

and authorizing her attorney to act on her behalf. J.A. 43. 

A person appearing before the Board is bound by the 

actions of her selected representative. Duncan v. Merit 

Sys. Prot. Bd., 795 F.2d 1000, 1002–03 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 

Ms. Jackson’s attorney submitted a withdrawal that was 

“clear, unequivocal, and decisive.” Page, 110 M.S.P.R. at ¶ 

5. The withdrawal was an “act of finality” that removed 

the appeal from the Board’s jurisdiction. Spencer v. R.R. 

Ret. Bd., 93 M.S.P.R. 80, 82 (2002). We find no unusual 

circumstances such as misinformation or new and material evidence that would have justified reinstating Ms. 

Jackson’s appeal. See White v. United States Postal Serv., 

92 M.S.P.R. 113, 114 (2002). We therefore affirm the 

Board’s decision. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-3121 Document: 43-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/09/2015