U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2025

Williams v. MSPB

Williams v. MSPB
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided September 10, 2025

Williams v. MSPB

Opinion

Case: 25-1858 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CHARLES L. WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent ______________________ 2025-1858 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in Nos. CH-0831-23-0390-I-1 and CH-0831-23-0390- I-2. ______________________ Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER In response to the court’s order to show cause, the Merit Systems Protection Board urges dismissal of Charles L. Williams’s petition. Mr. Williams has not responded.

Mr. Williams filed an appeal at the Board concerning annuity benefits. An initial decision dismissed that appeal subject to automatic refiling. In a March 2025 order, the Board denied Mr. Williams’s petition for review of that de- cision and forwarded the matter to the regional office for Case: 25-1858 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2025

2 WILLIAMS v. MSPB

adjudication. The matter was then redocketed under a new appeal number (“I-2 Appeal”) and is currently proceeding.

On June 10, 2025, this court received a submission from Mr. Williams construed as a petition for review.

This court’s jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to “final” orders or decisions of the Board, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), i.e., a decision or order that “ends the litigation on the merits,” Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); cf. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Board’s March 2025 order forwarding for further proceedings clearly failed to end the litigation on the merits. See Strausbaugh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010). And no final decision in the I-2 Appeal has yet been issued. We thus lack jurisdiction over Mr. Williams’s petition for re- view.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition for review is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

September 10, 2025 Date

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