Lee D. GLENN (79-3351), Peter O. Samples (79-3530), John A. Wright (79-3543), Vernon E. Whitehead (79-3579), Michael L. Novack (79-3612), Werner G. Steinagel (79-3615), Petitioners,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued December 14, 1979.
Decided March 5, 1980.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
John T. Lavey, John L. Burnett, Little Rock, Ark., for petitioner Glenn.
Evangeline Swift, Gen. Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Bd., William Kanter, Joseph B. Scott, Appellate Staff, Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent in all cases.
Barbara Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Marleigh Dover Lang, U. S. Dept. of Justice, App. Section — Civil Div., Washington, D. C., for respondent in No. 79-3351.
Peter O. Samples, Williamstown, Ky., pro se.
Merit Systems Protection Board, Atlanta Region, Atlanta, Ga., General Services Administration, Atlanta, Ga., Wendy M. Keats, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent in No. 79-3530.
Harold L. Williams, The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, Law Reform Office, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner Wright.
Thomas H. Oehmke, Mark A. Richardson, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner Whitehead.
Merit Systems Protection Board, Chicago, Ill., Jerome Brennan, Agency Representative, U. S. Army Tank Automotive Material Readiness Command, Warren, Mich., for respondent in No. 79-3579.
Duncan Ragsdale, James F. Schaeffer & Associates, Memphis, Tenn., for Novack.
William Kanter, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent in No. 79-3612.
David L. Hall, Slicer, Hall & Slicer, Dayton, Ohio, for petitioner Steinagel.
United States Marshals Service, Washington, D. C., for respondent in No. 79-3615.
Before MERRITT, KENNEDY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners seek review of adverse personnel actions by the Merit Systems Protection Board (the "Board"). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Section 902 (the "Savings Clause") of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (the "Act"), Pub.L.No.95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, precludes direct review by this court.
The Act which became effective on January 11, 1979, provides for direct review of final orders of the Board in the Court of Claims or a...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
