Case Name: Royal E. GLAUDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-19
Citations: 657 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 15-15241
Parties: Royal E. GLAUDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 657
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
Royal E. GLAUDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-15241
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 13, 2016
Filed September 19, 2016
Royal E. Glaude, Newark, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Robin Michael Wall, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Royal E. Glaude appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 1995), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Glaude's appeal from the MSPB's final order because the MSPB dismissed Glaude's claims for lack of jurisdiction, and any appeal of such an order must be made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b) (with limited exception, MSPB decisions are appealable only to the Federal Circuit); Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1998) ("[A]ppeals of MSPB jurisdictional decisions involving mixed claims are properly venued in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.").
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and documents raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.
xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.