Court Opinion

ID: 9927224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 16:01:49.687898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:10.810980
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2166    Document: 15     Page: 1    Filed: 01/26/2024

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                      JOHN BREDA,
                        Petitioner

                             v.

       MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
                     Respondent
               ______________________

                        2023-2166
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. PH-1221-23-0138-W-1.
                 ______________________

    Before DYK, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
      In response to this court’s November 7, 2023, order di-
 recting the parties to show cause whether John Breda’s pe-
 tition for review should be dismissed for lack of
 jurisdiction, the Merit Systems Protection Board urges dis-
 missal, which Dr. Breda opposes.
     On April 19, 2023, the administrative judge granted-
 in-part Dr. Breda’s motion to dismiss without prejudice
 subject to refiling “on the motion of the administrative
 judge by July 18, 2023,” and ordered that “[u]pon refiling,
Case: 23-2166     Document: 15     Page: 2      Filed: 01/26/2024

 2                                               BREDA v. MSPB

 this matter will immediately be set for a new hearing” as
 discovery was closed. ECF No. 2 at 10. Dr. Breda then
 filed a petition for review with this court. His Board appeal
 has since been reopened, and the Board notes without con-
 tradiction that no final decision has yet been entered.
      In general, this court only has jurisdiction over “an ap-
 peal from a final order or final decision of the” Board. 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9); see 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). “The Su-
 preme Court has consistently held that as a general rule
 an order is final only when it ends litigation on the merits
 and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judg-
 ment.” Weed v. Social Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361
 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). “Whether an order is final
 does not depend on the specific ‘form of words’ that it uses
 but instead on whether the order evinces the [tribunal’s]
 clear intent to end the case.” PlasmaCAM, Inc. v.
 CNCElectronics, LLC, 24 F.4th 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
 (citation omitted). Here, the April 2023 order Dr. Breda
 seeks to appeal clearly evinced the opposite intent—i.e., the
 Board was not finished with Dr. Breda’s appeal. Indeed,
 consistent with the order, Dr. Breda’s appeal has been reo-
 pened and is currently pending before the administrative
 judge.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The petition for review is dismissed.
     (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                 FOR THE COURT

 January 26, 2024
      Date