22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T531,MEMORANDUM David Matthew Shipp, a former federal employee, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against the Department of Health and Human Services (“Department”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings relevant to its determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Autery v. United States, 424 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo the district court’s legal determination, see Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1428 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Shipp’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Shipp sought review of a decision of the Merit System Protection Board (“MSPB”) that did not adjudicate the merits of Shipp’s discrimination claims against the Department. See id. (“[0]nly the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can review MSPB decisions in cases that do not entail discrimination claims[.]”); Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1998) (discussing importance of uniformity of MSPB-related case law). Shipp’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. We deny all pending motions. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T568,

MEMORANDUM

David Matthew Shipp, a former federal employee, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against the Department of Health and Human Services (“Department”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings relevant to its determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Autery v. United States, 424 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo the district court’s legal determination, see Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1428 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shipp’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Shipp sought review of a decision of the Merit System Protection Board (“MSPB”) that did not adjudicate the merits of Shipp’s discrimination claims against the Department. See id. (“[0]nly the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can review MSPB decisions in cases that do not entail discrimination claims[.]”); Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1998) (discussing importance of uniformity of MSPB-related case law).

Shipp’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.