Case Name: Miguela R. BERROMILLA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-02
Citations: 66 F. App'x 881
Docket Number: No. 03-3107
Parties: Miguela R. BERROMILLA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.
Judges: Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 66
Pages: 881–881

Head Matter:
Miguela R. BERROMILLA, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.
No. 03-3107.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 2, 2003.
Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
Miguela R. Berromilla responds to the court's order directing her to show cause why her petition for review should not be dismissed as frivolous. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) responds. Berromilla replies.
Berromilla sought a survivor annuity at OPM based on the federal service of her deceased husband, Roberto B. Berromilla. OPM denied her request because her claim was dependent on the determination that her spouse was eligible for benefits, and his claim for benefits had been denied previously. The Board affirmed on the ground that Berromilla's annuity claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The Board adjudicated Roberto B. Berromilla's CSRS eligibility, and this court summarily affirmed. See Berromilla v. Office of Personnel Management, 50 M.S.P.R. 156 (1991) (Table), aff'd, 965 F.2d 1064 (Fed.Cir.1992) (Table). Because Miguela R. Berromilla's eligibility for a survivor annuity is dependent on Roberto B. Berromilla's CSRS eligibility, which has already been adjudicated, her claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). Further, we note that we earlier dismissed a petition for review from Berromilla on the ground that it was frivolous. In that case, she unsuccessfully challenged the regulations at issue here.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
(3) All pending motions are moot.