Case Name: David M. SHIPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-08
Citations: 369 F. App'x 861
Docket Number: No. 09-35168
Parties: David M. SHIPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 861–862

Head Matter:
David M. SHIPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-35168.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2010.
David M. Shipp, Montgomery, AL, pro se.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., J. Michael Diaz, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Matthew Shipp, a former federal employee, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action against the Department of Health and Human Services ("Department"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court's factual findings relevant to its determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Autery v. United States, 424 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo the district court's legal determination, see Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1428 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shipp's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Shipp sought review of a decision of the Merit System Protection Board ("MSPB") that did not adjudicate the merits of Shipp's discrimination claims against the Department. See id. ("[0]nly the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can review MSPB decisions in cases that do not entail discrimination claims[.]"); Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1998) (discussing importance of uniformity of MSPB-related case law).
Shipp's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny all pending motions.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.