NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3010 CHARLES R. MCCOY, Petitioner,

v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.
Charles R. McCoy , of Allen, Texas, pro se. Joseph E. Ashman , Steven J. Abelson , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justic e, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Bryant G. Snee , Deputy Director. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposit ion is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3010 CHARLES R. MCCOY, Petitioner,

v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit System s Protection Board in DA-0752-07-0263-B-1.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: February 9, 2009

______ ____________________ Before LINN, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Charles R. McCoy (“McCoy”) seeks revi ew of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board ”), which affirmed his remova l from the United States Postal Service (“the agency”). McCoy v. U.S. Postal Serv. , No. DA-0752-07-0263-B-1 (M.S.P.B. June 16, 2008) (“ Decision ”), review denied , McCoy v. U.S. Postal Serv. , No. DA-0752-07-0263-B-1 (M.S.P.B. Sept. 18, 2008) . Because we lack jurisdiction to review McCoy’s petition, we dismiss

. McCoy was removed from his positi on as a maintenance custodian with the agency following an altercation in whic h he allegedly threat ened the life of his supervisor. McCoy filed a grievance purs uant to the collective bargaining agreement between his union and the agency. Th e grievance was eventually appealed toarbitration. After a heari ng, during which McCoy was repr esented by a union official, the arbitrator issued a decis ion, concluding that the agency’s Notice of Proposed Removal was issued for just cause. McCoy subsequently filed an app eal with the Board, challenging the agency’s removal acti on and for the first time alleging that his removal resulted from unlawful racial discrimination. Spec ifically, McCoy alleged that he was disciplined disparatel y from similarly situated white employees under the agency’s “zero tolerance” policy toward viol ence in the workplace. Following Board proceedings unrelated to the instant appeal, the administrat ive judge concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred McCoy’ s attempt to relitigate the agency’s removal action, Decision at 16-17, and that McCoy failed to prove his affirmative defense of racial discrimination, id. at 20. The full Board denied review, and McCoy timely appealed to this court. “In Williams v. Department of the Army , 715 F.2d 1485 (Fed. Cir. 1983), this court held that it had no jurisdiction over the merits of a mixed case, i.e. , one involving an adverse action and a claim of discrimination. However, a case which was presented to the [Board] as a mixed case will be heard by this court if t he petitioner files an explicit waiver of the claim of discrimination.” Davidson v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 24 F.3d 223, 223- 24 (Fed. Cir. 1994). McCoy purpor ted to file such a waiver in this case, checking the box on his Statement Concerning Discriminat ion pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(c) indica ting that “[n]o claim of discr imination by reason of race, sex, age, national origin, or handicapped condition has been or will be made in this case.” Notwithstanding McCoy’s notation of wa iver, the sole issue raised in his petition is the Board’s decision with respect to his claim of racial discrimination. See Pet’r’s

2009-3010 22009-3010 3 Informal Br. at 1 (challenging “disparity of treatment”). Because McCoy has not presented any arguments that are divorced from his discr imination claim, we lack jurisdiction to review his petit ion. As a result, we must dismiss

. COSTS No costs.