NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CYRIL D. ORAM, JR.,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2022-1251

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-4324-20-0476-M-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 7, 2022

______________________ 

CYRIL DAVID DANIEL ORAM, JR., Bellingham, WA, pro 

se. 

 KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel, 

United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE 

MICHELLE SMITH. 

 ______________________ 

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-1251 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 06/07/2022
2 ORAM v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

Cyril D. Oram, Jr. appeals from the decision of the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) dismissing 

his appeal without prejudice. Oram v. Dep’t of Com., 

No. AT-4324-20-0476-M-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 30, 2021), SAppx 

1–101. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss Oram’s 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2020, Oram filed an appeal at the Board, 

alleging that the Department of Commerce discriminated 

against him based on his military service in violation of the 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment

Rights Act. SAppx 1. The Board dismissed his appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. Id. Oram appealed to this court. Id. 

This court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings concerning issues not relevant to this appeal. 

Oram v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 855 F. App’x 699, 700 (Fed. 

Cir. 2021). 

On remand, Oram requested that the administrative 

judge dismiss his appeal without prejudice pending the 

outcome of a related case. SAppx 2. The administrative 

judge granted Oram’s request and stated that he could refile his appeal between October 5, 2021 and January 29, 

2022. Id. The administrative judge’s initial decision became the decision of the Board on October 4, 2021. Id. 

Subsequently, Oram appealed to this court, arguing, 

among other things, that the Board had “disdain” for pro se

appellants and that the “agency concealed evidence.” Appellant’s Br. (cont.) 4, 6, 8.

1 All SAppx citations refer to the supplemental appendix filed concurrently with the government’s brief.

Case: 22-1251 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 06/07/2022
ORAM v. MSPB 3

DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, we address whether we have jurisdiction to address Orem’s appeal. We conclude that we 

do not.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9), we have jurisdiction over a “final order or final 

decision” of the Board. Here, the dismissal without prejudice was not a final, appealable decision because it provided Oram the option to refile his claim. See, e.g., Weed v. 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We 

have held that the final judgment rule applies to appeals 

from the Merit Systems Protection Board.”); Strausbaugh 

v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (nonprecedential) (“[T]he AJ’s rulings on [appellant’s] motions to dismiss without prejudice are not final, 

appealable orders because they leave [him] the option of 

refiling his claims.”). Indeed, shortly after his appeal was 

dismissed, Oram refiled his claim and the administrative 

judge scheduled a hearing for May 17, 2022. SAppx 14–17. 

Accordingly, the dismissal did not “end[] the litigation on 

the merits” and “leave[] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,” as required for finality. Weed, 571 

F.3d at 1361 (quoting Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368, 1372 

(Fed. Cir. 2001)). Because the decision was not final, we 

are without jurisdiction to address Oram’s appeal. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Oram’s remaining arguments but 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

Case: 22-1251 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 06/07/2022