Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 31123 Su m m ar y Cal endar

B E VO R R , P l a i n tiff - A p p ell a n t v. M E R IT S Y S T E M S P R O T E C T IO N B O A R D , D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana 2: 09- C V

- 3419

B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * B ev O rr ap pea l s the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s d i sm i ssalof h er case forlack of subj ect
m att er j u ri sdi ct i on . O rr w as em pl oyedas a ph arm aci stby the D epa rt m en tof t h e A rm y. I n 199 2, t h e A rm y ap poi n t ed O rr t o an overseas posi t i on f or a t w elvem ont h t er m endi ng Jul y 11, 1993. The A r m y t er m i nat ed O r ron July 11, 1993
a t t h e en dof th e term of em p l oy m en t. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 20, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-31123 Document: 00511117518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010N o. 09- 31123

2 O rr ap p e a l ed h er t erm i n ati on t o t h e M eri tSy st em s Protec t i on B oard ( “MS P B ” ) , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e A r my a p p o i n t e d h e r t o a t h i r t y - s i xmo n t h t e r m, nota t w elve- m ont h t er m . Th e M SP B di sm i ss ed t he appeal , f i ndi ng t hatO r rw as a p p o i n t e dt o a t w e lv e - mo n t h t e r m, a n dt h e r e f o r e , h e rt e r mi n a t i o n b yt h e A r my att he e nd o f

t hatt e r m w as no ta n a dv e r s e a c t i o n t hatw as a ppe al ab l e t o t he M SPB

. Orrdi d notappe alt he B o ar d’ s dec i s i o n t o t he C o ur tof Appe al s f

o rt he F e d e ra l C ircu it, a s w a s h e r r igh t. 2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 9 5 (a )(9). In 199 9, O rr f

i l ed another ap pea l w i t h t h e M S P B
. Th e M S P B di sm i ssed O rr’ s c l ai m s , f

i nding thats hew ascoll ater al l y est opp ed f rom reli t i gati n g w h et h er h er appoi nt m entex t ended pas tJul y 11, 1993. O r rappeal ed t o t he Feder al C ir c u it, w h ic h a ffir m e dth e M S P B ’ s d e c is io n . O r rv . D e p ’ tof A r my , 251 F. 3d 170, 2 0 0 0 W L 1 8 1 0 0 1 1 (F e d
. C ir. D e c. 1 1 , 2 0 0 0 ). N ow n earl y seven t een y ears aft er h er ter m i n ati on b y t h e A rm y an d m ore t han n i n e y e ar s a f

t e rt he Fe de r alCi r c ui t ’ s de c i s i o n i n thi s m at t e r , O r rf o rt he t h i rd t i m e seeks t o li t i gate her t erm i n ati on . Th e M arch 20 00 M S P B order,
w hi c h i s t he s ubj ec tof t he i nst ants ui ti ndi c at ed t hatO r rh ad 60 days to appeal t o t he Fe de r alCi r c uit
. Thi s s ui ti s c l e ar l y t i m e b ar r e d. F u rt h erm ore, t h e di st ri ctcourtcorrec t l y determ i n ed t h at i tlacked sub j ect
m at t erj uri sdi c t i on to h earO r r ’ s c as e. W e re vi ew the di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss al forl ac k o f

s ubj e c tm at t e rj ur i s di c t i o n de no vo . S ee Wi l l i am s v. D allas A rea R a p idTra n sit , 2 4 2 F .3 d 3 1 5 , 3 1 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). P u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 129 5( a) ( 9) , t h e F ederalC i rcui tha s ex c l us i v ej ur i s di c t i o n o v e ra n a p p e a lf r o m a f i n a lo r d e ro rfin a l d e c is io n o f th e M S P B
. S ee als o B lak e v. D ep’ tof A i r Force , 79 4 F. 3d1 70 , 1 72 ( 5t h C i r . 198 6)

. I f ac as e i nvo lve s adi s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m , t he F e d e r a l C ir c u it’s ju r is d ic tio n is n o t e x c lu s iv e a n dafe d e r a l e m p lo y e e m a yo b ta in d e novo r evi ew of a n M S P B d eci si on i n suc h a “ m i xed c as e a ppeal” by f i l i ng a c iv il a c tio n in fe d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t. Se eHa r m s v . I
. R. S. , 321 F. 3d 1001, 1005 ( 1 0 t h C ir .), cer t
. den i ed , 5 4 0 U .S . 8 5 8 (2 0 0 3 ) (c itin g2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 1 4 .3 1 0 (b )). Case: 09-31123 Document: 00511117518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2010N o. 09- 31123

3 A l t h ou gh O rr’ s pl ead i n gs are hard l y pel l u ci d, her concl u sory ass ert i on s t h at her t erm i n ati on w as m ot ivated by a ret al i ator y i n t en tan d that she i n t en ds t o sec u re a favorab l e rul i n g f rom t h e E E O C , do n ota di scr i m i n ati on cl ai m m ak e. Acc o r di ngly, s he w as e nt i t l e d t o r e vi e w o nl y i n t he Fe de r alCi r c ui t , w hi c h s he
r e c e ive d. B ecau se t h e di strict co u rtproperl y determ i n ed that i tl acked subj ect
m a tt e rju r is d ic tio n , w e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t o f d is m is s a l. Case: 09-31123 Document: 00511117518 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/20/2010