Filed: Oct. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1927 In re: ROGER ELLIOTT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Elliott, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger Elliott petitions for a writ of mandamus
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1927 In re: ROGER ELLIOTT, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Elliott, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger Elliott petitions for a writ of mandamus,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1927
In re: ROGER ELLIOTT,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Submitted: October 18, 2018 Decided: October 22, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger Elliott, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Elliott petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order directing the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to remedy his allegedly unlawful termination
from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation nearly two decades ago. We lack
authority to grant the relief Elliott seeks. See In re Ojeda Rios,
863 F.2d 202, 204-05 (2d
Cir. 1988) (collecting cases holding that appellate court’s jurisdiction over mandamus
petitions is limited to petitions directed toward tribunal over which it has appellate
authority); see also Flynn v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n,
877 F.3d 200, 203 (4th Cir.
2017) (outlining our limited authority over petitions for review from MSPB).
Accordingly, we deny Elliott’s motions for clarification, deny his motion to amend the
mandamus petitions, and dismiss the mandamus petitions. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DISMISSED
2