The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-1976•Teresa Fitzgerald v. Merit Systems Protection Board
25-1976Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitDec 29, 2025
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TERESA FITZGERALD,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1976
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-3443-25-1793-I-1.
______________________
Before REYNA, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Teresa Fitzgerald has petitioned both this court and
the Merit Systems Protection Board for review of an initial
decision. Because the petition at the Board was deemed
timely filed and remains pending, the court directed the
parties to show cause whether the petition to this court
should be dismissed as premature. The Board urges dis-
missal. Ms. Fitzgerald has not responded.
In general, this court only has jurisdiction over “an ap-
peal from a final order or final decision of the . . . Board.”
Case: 25-1976 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 12/29/2025
-- 1 of 2 --
FITZGERALD v. MSPB 2
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). A timely petition for Board review
renders the initial decision non-final. See 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.113(a). Given Ms. Fitzgerald’s pending petition at
the Board, this court currently lacks jurisdiction. After the
Board issues a final decision, Ms. Fitzgerald may, if neces-
sary, file a timely petition for this court’s review. Alterna-
tively, if she wishes to forgo Board review of her petition
and instead directly pursue this court’s review, she may
wish to consider the Board’s withdrawal policy as identified
by the Clerk of the Board in the letter accompanying the
certified list in this case. See ECF No. 16 at 1; see also June
2022 Board Policy.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition for review is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
December 29, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1976 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 12/29/2025
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.