John P. Turner, Petitioner, v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Respondent, 56 F.3d 83 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 56 F.3d 83 (Fed. Cir. 1995) May 12, 1995. Rehearing Denied June 21, 1995

Before ARCHER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and PLAGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


John P. Turner seeks review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Docket No. DC3443940764-I-1, dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm the decision of the Board.

Mr. Turner's appeal is based upon the alleged failure of the Commonwealth of Virginia to afford him a veteran's preference in his application for employment with the Commonwealth's Department of Human Services. After notifying Mr. Turner that the Board might not have jurisdiction over the actions of the Commonwealth of Virginia and providing him with an opportunity to present evidence and argument to establish the Board's jurisdiction, the Board dismissed his appeal.

The Board correctly determined that it was only authorized to review certain actions of the federal government and lacked jurisdiction to review the actions of state agencies. See 5 U.S.C. §§7701(a), 2101(1), 2105(a). The Board's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specifically granted by statute or regulation. Cowan v. United States, 710 F.2d 803, 805 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Mr. Turner has pointed to no statute or regulation, nor do we know of any, which grants the Board jurisdiction in this case. Since Mr. Turner has the burden of establishing the Board's jurisdiction, Stern v. Dept. of the Army, 699 F.2d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1122 (1983), the Board properly dismissed Mr. Turner's appeal.

On petition for review in this court, Mr. Turner raises a number of other complaints against both the federal and state governments. Since these issues were not raised before the Board, it is inappropriate for this court to consider them.

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.