ROYAL GLAUDE V. POSTMASTER GENERAL, No. 15-15241 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 19 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROYAL E. GLAUDE, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-15241 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-04071-MEJ MEMORANDUM* POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted September 13, 2016*** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Royal E. Glaude appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his appeal from the Merit Systems Protection * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Board (“MSPB”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 1995), and we affirm. The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Glaude’s appeal from the MSPB’s final order because the MSPB dismissed Glaude’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, and any appeal of such an order must be made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b) (with limited exception, MSPB decisions are appealable only to the Federal Circuit); Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A]ppeals of MSPB jurisdictional decisions involving mixed claims are properly venued in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.”). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and documents raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15241

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.