Court Opinion

ID: 9397283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:11.641139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.360778
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1049      Doc: 62         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1049

        MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        U. S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merits Systems Protection Board. (DC-1221-
        19-0058-W-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Martin Edwin Andersen, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrew Hunter, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey Gauger, UNITED STATES
        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D.C.; Tameka MeShaun
        Collier, DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY, Arlington, Virginia, for
        Respondents.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1049      Doc: 62          Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Martin Edwin Andersen seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s

        (MSPB) order denying Andersen’s petition for review of the administrative law judge’s

        decision disposing of Andersen’s whistleblower complaint against the Department of

        Defense (DOD). We have reviewed Andersen’s informal brief and conclude that Andersen

        raises no meaningful challenge to the MSPB’s dispositive holdings. Any such challenges

        are therefore now forfeited. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised

        in informal brief); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal

        brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues

        preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We grant the

        MSPB’s motion to dismiss party, leaving the DOD as the sole respondent, see 5 U.S.C.

        § 7703(a)(2), and deny all other pending motions. 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.

                                                                                PETITION DENIED

                                                      2