Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Edward R. Vauls v. Veterans Administration, Merit Systems Protection Board, and United States of America, 82-1054 (1982)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Number: 82-1054 Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 19, 1982
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 693 F.2d 232 224 U.S.App.D.C. 117 Edward R. VAULS, Petitioner, v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, Merit Systems Protection Board, and United States of America, Respondents. No. 82-1054. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Submitted Nov. 4, 1982. Decided Nov. 19, 1982. James R. Rosa and Mitchell J. Notis, Washington, D.C., on brief for petitioner. Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty. and Royce C. Lamberth, R. Craig Lawrence, Michael J. Ryan, and Regina C. McGranery, Asst. U.S. Attys.,
More

693 F.2d 232

224 U.S.App.D.C. 117

Edward R. VAULS, Petitioner,
v.
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, Merit Systems Protection Board, and
United States of America, Respondents.

No. 82-1054.

United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 4, 1982.
Decided Nov. 19, 1982.

James R. Rosa and Mitchell J. Notis, Washington, D.C., on brief for petitioner.

Stanley S. Harris, U.S. Atty. and Royce C. Lamberth, R. Craig Lawrence, Michael J. Ryan, and Regina C. McGranery, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., on brief for respondent. Alan F. Greenwald and Evangeline W. Swift, Attys., Merit Systems Protection Bd., Washington, D.C., entered appearances for respondent.

Before WRIGHT, WILKEY, and WALD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court per curiam.

PER CURIAM:

1

We conclude, in agreement with the decisions in Hayes v. United States Government Printing Office, 684 F.2d 137 (D.C.Cir.1982), Chang v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 677 F.2d 173 (1st Cir.1982), Christo v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 667 F.2d 882 (10th Cir.1981), and Wiggins v. United States Postal Service, 653 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.1981), that mixed cases involving claims of both discrimination and improper agency action must be brought as one action in the District Court. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over the petition, and it is therefore dismissed.

2

So ordered.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer