Court Opinion

ID: 9405275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:58.861802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.644713
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1332      Doc: 23         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1332

        JULIAN R. ASH,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION
        BOARD; FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
        PROGRAMS,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00649-GLR)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Julian R. Ash, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1332      Doc: 23         Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Julian R. Ash seeks to appeal the district court’s order entering a briefing schedule

        related to his petition for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decision.

        This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain

        interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

        Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Ash seeks to appeal

        is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. * Accordingly,

        we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Ash’s

        motion for a stay pending appeal, but grant his motions to amend his filings. We dispense

        with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

               *
                To the extent Ash asks us to construe his notice of appeal as a petition for review,
        we lack jurisdiction to directly review the MSPB’s decision. See Perry v. MSPB, 582 U.S.
        420, 431-32 (2017).

                                                     2