Case Name: Douglas W. ABRUZZO, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-17
Citations: 438 F. App'x 901
Docket Number: No. 2011-3218
Parties: Douglas W. ABRUZZO, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 438
Pages: 901–901

Head Matter:
Douglas W. ABRUZZO, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
No. 2011-3218.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Nov. 17, 2011.
Before BRYSON, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Douglas W. Abruzzo moves for "extraordinary relief," i.e. reinstatement to his position, pending this court's review of his petition for review. The Social Security Administration (the SSA) moves for an extension of time to file its response and opposes Abruzzo's motion. Abruzzo replies.
The SSA sought to remove Abruzzo from his position as administrative law judge based on four charges: failure to follow instructions, failure to follow a direct order to treat coworkers and the public with courtesy, conduct unbecoming an administrative law judge, and failure to follow a direct order to conduct certain scheduled hearings. The administrative law judge assigned to Abruzzo's case found that the agency had established good cause to remove Abruzzo and authorized his removal. The Merit Systems Protection Board denied Abruzzo's petition for review of that decision.
Abruzzo asserts that he will suffer "several financial hardship" during the proceedings at this court. The Supreme Court has held that the loss of earnings due to loss of Federal employment is not irreparable harm because adequate relief may be available later. Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 89-92, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974). Absent a showing of irreparable harm, the movant must show a strong likelihood of success on the merits to be entitled to a stay, or interim relief, pending review. See Standard Havens Products v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511, 512 (Fed.Cir.1990). Abruzzo has not made such a showing in his motion.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
(1) The motion for extraordinary relief is denied.
(2) The motion for an extension of time is granted.