Filed: Jun. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2433 ROBERT MICHAEL MILLER, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. (DC-1221-16-0071-W-1) Submitted: May 31, 2017 Decided: June 6, 2017 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Michael Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Katrina Marie Lederer, Katherine Michelle Smith, U.S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2433 ROBERT MICHAEL MILLER, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. (DC-1221-16-0071-W-1) Submitted: May 31, 2017 Decided: June 6, 2017 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Michael Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Katrina Marie Lederer, Katherine Michelle Smith, U.S...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2433 ROBERT MICHAEL MILLER, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. (DC-1221-16-0071-W-1) Submitted: May 31, 2017 Decided: June 6, 2017 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Michael Miller, Petitioner Pro Se. Katrina Marie Lederer, Katherine Michelle Smith, U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Michael Miller seeks review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s order dismissing his whistleblower retaliation appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no error in the MSPB’s decision. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the MSPB. Miller v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., No. DC-1221-16-0071-W-1 (M.S.P.B. June 16, 2016). 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. PETITION DENIED 2
