Case: 22-1251 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 06/07/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CYRIL D. ORAM, JR.,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2022-1251
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-4324-20-0476-M-1.
______________________
Decided: June 7, 2022
______________________
CYRIL DAVID DANIEL ORAM, JR., Bellingham, WA, pro
se.
KATRINA LEDERER, Office of the General Counsel,
United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE
MICHELLE SMITH.
______________________
Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1251 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 06/07/2022
2 ORAM v. MSPB
PER CURIAM.
Cyril D. Oram, Jr. appeals from the decision of the U.S.
Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) dismissing
his appeal without prejudice. Oram v. Dep’t of Com.,
No. AT-4324-20-0476-M-1 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 30, 2021), SAppx
1–10 1. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss Oram’s
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2020, Oram filed an appeal at the Board,
alleging that the Department of Commerce discriminated
against him based on his military service in violation of the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act. SAppx 1. The Board dismissed his appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. Id. Oram appealed to this court. Id.
This court vacated and remanded the case for further pro-
ceedings concerning issues not relevant to this appeal.
Oram v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 855 F. App’x 699, 700 (Fed.
Cir. 2021).
On remand, Oram requested that the administrative
judge dismiss his appeal without prejudice pending the
outcome of a related case. SAppx 2. The administrative
judge granted Oram’s request and stated that he could re-
file his appeal between October 5, 2021 and January 29,
2022. Id. The administrative judge’s initial decision be-
came the decision of the Board on October 4, 2021. Id.
Subsequently, Oram appealed to this court, arguing,
among other things, that the Board had “disdain” for pro se
appellants and that the “agency concealed evidence.” Ap-
pellant’s Br. (cont.) 4, 6, 8.
1 All SAppx citations refer to the supplemental ap-
pendix filed concurrently with the government’s brief.
Case: 22-1251 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 06/07/2022
ORAM v. MSPB 3
DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, we address whether we have ju-
risdiction to address Orem’s appeal. We conclude that we
do not.
Pursuant to
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) and
28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9), we have jurisdiction over a “final order or final
decision” of the Board. Here, the dismissal without preju-
dice was not a final, appealable decision because it pro-
vided Oram the option to refile his claim. See, e.g., Weed v.
Soc. Sec. Admin.,
571 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We
have held that the final judgment rule applies to appeals
from the Merit Systems Protection Board.”); Strausbaugh
v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 401 F. App’x 524, 526 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (nonprecedential) (“[T]he AJ’s rulings on [appel-
lant’s] motions to dismiss without prejudice are not final,
appealable orders because they leave [him] the option of
refiling his claims.”). Indeed, shortly after his appeal was
dismissed, Oram refiled his claim and the administrative
judge scheduled a hearing for May 17, 2022. SAppx 14–17.
Accordingly, the dismissal did not “end[] the litigation on
the merits” and “leave[] nothing for the court to do but ex-
ecute the judgment,” as required for finality. Weed,
571
F.3d at 1361 (quoting Allen v. Principi,
237 F.3d 1368, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2001)). Because the decision was not final, we
are without jurisdiction to address Oram’s appeal.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Oram’s remaining arguments but
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dis-
miss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
