U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2023

Martin Andersen v. MSPB

Martin Andersen v. MSPB
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 23, 2023

Martin Andersen v. MSPB

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.