Elizabeth Oyer v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ELIZABETH OYER,
Petitioner
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
Respondent
______________________
2026-1346
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC-0752-25-2372-I-1.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Elizabeth Oyer appealed her removal from federal ser-
vice to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The adminis-
trative judge dismissed without prejudice subject to
automatic reinstatement to allow for the expected resolu-
tion of two appeals pending before the full Board on related
Case: 26-1346 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

OYER v. MSPB 2
issues.1 Ms. Oyer then petitioned this court. In response
to this court’s show cause order, Ms. Oyer urges the court
to exercise jurisdiction and grant relief under Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 18. The Board opposes that motion
and urges dismissal because the appeal is premature.
This court’s jurisdiction with respect to appeals from
the Board is limited to “an appeal from a final order or final
decision of the . . . Board.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). “[A]n
order is final only when it ends the litigation on the mer-
its[.]” Weed v. Social Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); cf. PGS Geophysical AS v.
Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The order dis-
missing Ms. Oyer’s appeal subject to automatic refiling did
not resolve the merits of the appeal. Rather, it “effectively
stay[ed the] proceedings,” In re Jadhav, 795 F. App’x 846,
848 (Fed. Cir. 2020), which “is not ordinarily a final deci-
sion,” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
460 U.S. 1, 10, n.11 (1983), and was obviously not one
here.2 Even were we to construe this as a petition for a writ
of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, we cannot say that
the stay is “so extensive that it is ‘immoderate or indefi-
nite’” or otherwise a clear abuse of discretion. Groves v.
McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (cleaned
up); see Jadhav, 795 F. App’x at 848.
Accordingly,
1 The Board has now issued its decision.
2 Ms. Oyer points to boilerplate language in the ad-
ministrative judge’s decision regarding finality, but “[t]he
Board’s characterization of its order does not . . . govern
our jurisdiction under our jurisdictional statutes,” Morri-
son v. Dep’t of the Navy, 876 F.3d 1106, 1110 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 2017).
Case: 26-1346 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

OYER v. MSPB 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
April 21, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1346 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 3 of 3 --