Natalie Green v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
NATALIE GREEN,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2026-1658
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH-844E-21-0041-I-2.
---------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE GREEN,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2026-1660
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH-844E-21-0041-I-1.
Case: 26-1658 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

GREEN v. MSPB 2
---------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE GREEN,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent
______________________
2026-1661
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. CH-844E-21-0041-I-2 and/or appeal from the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in No. 21-cv-06830, Judge John F. Kness.
______________________
Before TARANTO , CHEN , and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Natalie Green appealed a retirement annuity payment
calculation to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which
docketed the appeal as No. CH-844E-21-0041-I-1. The as-
signed administrative judge dismissed the appeal without
prejudice to automatic refiling, and when Ms. Green re-
filed, the matter was docketed as No. CH-844E-21-0041-I-
2, but the administrative judge dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Green sought review in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
which dismissed the case. She later sought this court’s re-
view. We now consider the parties’ responses to our order
to address this court’s jurisdiction.
Case: 26-1658 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

GREEN v. MSPB 3
Ms. Green’s response 1 indicates that she seeks this
court’s review of the Board’s final decision in No. CH-844E-
21-0041-I-2 dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction, 2
Appeal No. 2026-1658, ECF No. 15 at 8, and she expressly
abandons any discrimination claim to the extent any were
raised with the Board, Appeal No. 2026-1658, ECF No. 16.
Under the circumstances, the court will allow Appeal No.
2026-1658 to proceed to briefing. The court also grants the
Office of Personnel Management’s request to recaption this
appeal to designate the Board as the respondent in Appeal
No. 2026-1658, see 5 U.S.C. §7703(a)(2). Ms. Green does
not appear to seek review of the district court’s decision,
which the Board correctly notes we would lack jurisdiction
to review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). We thus dismiss Appeal
No. 2026-1661 and Appeal No. 2026-1660 as adding noth-
ing to Appeal No. 2026-1658. 3
Accordingly,
1 Ms. Green filed a response including all three cases
(two before the Board, one before the district court) in its
caption, Appeal No. 2026-1658, ECF No. 15 at 1.
2 For example, Ms. Green states that she “believes
this court has jurisdiction over this matter as it is her belief
that MSPB Board had jurisdiction and authority to adjudi-
cate her (auto) Re-filed 06/17/2021 MSPB Appeal by AJ
Senoo on its merits and therefore erred in making its Ini-
tial Final Decision to dismiss it on 10/19/2026 [sic] for lack
of jurisdiction.” Appeal No. 2026-1658, ECF No. 15 at 4
(emphases in original).
3 We note that the record filed in Appeal No. 2026-
1658 includes the CH-844E-21-0041-I-1 decision. See Ap-
peal No. 2026-1658, ECF No. 7 at 9–26 (certified list filed
by the Board).
Case: 26-1658 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

GREEN v. MSPB 4
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The official caption and short caption for Appeal
No. 2026-1658 are revised as reflected in this order to des-
ignate the Merit Systems Protection Board as the respond-
ent.
(2) Appeal Nos. 2026-1660 and 2026-1661 are dis-
missed with each side to bear its own costs.
(3) ECF No. 16 in Appeal No. 2026-1658 is accepted as
Ms. Green’s corrected Statement Concerning Discrimina-
tion.
(4) Ms. Green’s opening brief in Appeal No. 2026-1658
is due no later than 60 days from the date of entry of this
order.
July 23, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-1658 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 4 of 4 --