Crisell Seguin v. US Department of Labor ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1414
CRISELL SEGUIN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
BOARD; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORP.,
Respondents.
On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the United States Department of Labor
Administrative Review Board. (LABR-1:15-038; LABR-1:15-040; LABR-1:16-014)
Submitted: June 26, 2018 Decided: July 10, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Application dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Crisell Seguin, Petitioner Pro Se. Sarah Kay Marcus, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Lincoln Owens Bisbee, Peter
David Larson, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kelly Patrick
Dunbar, David William Ogden, WILMERHALE LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Citing Fed. R. App. P. 15(b), Petitioner Crisell Seguin has filed an application to
enforce Respondent Department of Labor Administrative Review Board’s order awarding
Seguin attorney’s fees and costs related to her whistleblower-retaliation complaint against
Respondent Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation. Having reviewed the parties’
submissions, we agree with Respondents that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Seguin’s
application. Contrary to Seguin’s argument, in the absence of a “special statute
conferring jurisdiction,” Rule 15 is not a source of appellate jurisdiction. Dew v. Hardin,
432 F.2d 926, 926 (4th Cir. 1970) (per curiam). No statute confers jurisdiction on this
Court to enforce the order in question. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A) (2012);
49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(6) (2012) (providing that jurisdiction over application for
enforcement of final order of Secretary of Labor in whistleblower action is in appropriate
district court). Accordingly, we deny Seguin’s motion to appoint counsel and dismiss her
Rule 15 application for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
APPLICATION DISMISSED
2