CHIN YOUNG v. UNITED STATES DOD MSPB (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Christopher CHIN-YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; U. S. Army; U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board; Kathleen Cole; Attorney General of the United States; Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney; Ashton Carter, DOD Secretary; Patrick J. Murphy, Secretary of the Army; William D. Spencer, MSPB Clerk of the Board; Denise Price; Leroy Lundgren, Cyber-Security Directorate, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-1176

Decided: August 20, 2020

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Christopher Chin-Young, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Christopher Chin-Young appeals the district court's order granting Defendants’ post-remand motion to dismiss Chin-Young's several claims related to his former federal employment.^* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chin-Young v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-01454-CMH-MSN, 2019 WL 6842538 (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE. After previously determining that a prior settlement agreement and a Merit Systems Protection Board decision barred most of Chin-Young's claims, we remanded the matter to the district court to determine in the first instance, what, if any, additional claims were not previously litigated. See Chin-Young v. United States, 774 F. App'x 106, 118 (4th Cir. 2019) (Nos. 17-2013/2017). On remand, the district court parsed through Chin-Young's complaint in compliance with our mandate and, after identifying several possible claims, nonetheless found those claims to be meritless.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network