Jose N. Lopez, Petitioner, v. Department of the Interior, Respondent, 867 F.2d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 867 F.2d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Jan. 26, 1989

Before RICH, EDWARD S. SMITH and PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


DECISION

Jose N. Lopez petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), Docket No. DEO3518810007, dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The full board denied petitioner's request pursuant to 5 CFR 1201.115 for review of the administrative judge's November 17, 1987, initial decision, but reopened the case on its own motion under 5 CFR 1201.117. The board then modified and affirmed the initial decision in a May 13, 1988, opinion and order. We affirm.

OPINION

Petitioner has not carried his burden of showing that the board had jurisdiction over his case. After careful review of the record, we conclude that he alleged no set of facts which, if proven, would make out a prima facie case of age discrimination. Cf. Hill v. Department of the Air Force, 796 F.2d 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Petitioner's allegations that the Department of the Interior (agency) coerced and manipulated him into giving up his job in violation of 5 USC Sec. 2302(b) (4) and (5) are similarly deficient. The two-page letter which petitioner points to as support for these allegations does not reflect any coercion or manipulation on the part of the agency. Furthermore, we agree with the government that Sec. 2302(b) (4) and (5), on their face, do not apply to petitioner. Finally, petitioner's naked allegation that the agency violated merit systems principles does not help his case. His other arguments have no merit. We conclude that petitioner has failed to raise any nonfrivolous allegations in support of jurisdiction which would have obligated the board to conduct a hearing and that the board properly dismissed his appeal.

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.