Court Opinion

ID: 9881768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:42.129407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.092288
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1459      Doc: 33         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1459

        TYSHA S. HOLMES,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS
        PROTECTION BOARD,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merits Systems Protection Board. (AT-0752-
        11-0263-B-4)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tysha S. Holmes, Petitioner Pro Se. Miles Jarrad Wright, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Katherine Michelle Smith, UNITED
        STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D.C., for
        Respondents.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1459       Doc: 33          Filed: 10/02/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Tysha S. Holmes seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB)

        final decision upholding Holmes’ removal from service and finding that Holmes failed to

        prove her race discrimination and whistleblower retaliation affirmative defenses. The

        United States Department of the Army (“the Army”) has filed a motion to dismiss Holmes’

        petition, and the MSPB has filed a motion to amend the caption to designate the Army as

        the sole respondent. Holmes opposes Respondents’ motions and moves for an extension

        of time to file her petition for review.

               As she did before the MSPB, Holmes argues that discrimination and whistleblower

        retaliation were the bases for her removal from service. Holmes has therefore brought a

        “mixed case” and may only seek judicial review of the MSPB’s decision “in federal district

        court.” Zachariasiewicz v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 48 F.4th 237, 243 (4th Cir. 2022) (emphasis

        added). We therefore grant the Army’s motion to dismiss and dismiss Holmes’ petition

        for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We deny as moot the MSPB’s motion to amend and

        Holmes’ motion for extension of time. 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 DISMISSED

                                                      2