NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

LORICO S. EDWARDS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2011-3236 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. SF0752110678-I-1. 

___________________________ 

Decided: June 12, 2012 

___________________________ 

LORICO S. EDWARDS, of Victorville, California, pro se. 

MICHAEL A. CARNEY, General Attorney, Office of the 

General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of 

Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief 

were JAMES M. EISENMANN, General Counsel, and KEISHA 

DAWN BELL, Deputy General Counsel. 

__________________________ 

Before LINN, MOORE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. 
EDWARDS v. MSPB 2

PER CURIAM. 

Lorico S. Edwards appeals the dismissal of his appeal 

to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) for lack of 

jurisdiction. Mr. Edwards was removed during his probationary period from his position as a Student Trainee IT 

specialist in the Systems Management Division with the 

Marine Corps Logistics Base. It is undisputed that Mr. 

Edwards was hired under an excepted appointment, and 

that his appointment was subject to a two-year trial 

period. 

Mr. Edwards appealed his removal to the MSPB, alleging, inter alia, discrimination based on marital status 

and partisan political reasons in an attempt to establish 

jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 315.806. The MSPB, however, found that Mr. Edwards could not avail himself of 

this regulation because it applied to the competitive 

service, and Mr. Edwards was hired in the excepted 

service. The MSPB also found that because Mr. Edwards 

failed to establish he was an employee as defined in 5 

U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1), it did not have jurisdiction to hear his 

appeal pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d). It dismissed Mr. 

Edwards’s appeal, and Mr. Edwards appealed to our 

court. We have jurisdiction to review a final decision of 

the MSPB, 28 U.S.C. § 1295, and we review that decision 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). 

Mr. Edwards does not dispute the MSPB’s factual determination that he fails to qualify as an employee under 

either 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B) or § 7511(a)(1)(C), or its 

legal conclusion that 5 C.F.R. § 315.806 applies only to 

the competitive service. He nevertheless argues that we 

should consider the timing of the removal in deciding 

whether the MSPB correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Edwards claims that he was only a “couple of 

weeks” removed from a year’s tenure, which he asserts 
3 EDWARDS v. MSPB

would put him into “a different employee bracket” and 

allow him less limited “rights of appeal.” We need not 

decide whether or not this is the case because we are 

bound to apply the jurisdictional limits of the statute. 

Substantial evidence supports the MSPB’s conclusions, 

and there is no indication that the MSPB abused its 

discretion or otherwise acted contrary to law in dismissing Mr. Edwards’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. As a 

result, we affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

No costs.