govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-4_26-cv-00068-0

- 1 - 
No. 4:26-cv-00068 
Krista Timika Walker, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
Roland Edwards et al., 
Respondents. 
O R D E R 
Petitioner, proceeding pro see, filed a petition for a writ of 
mandamus seeking a court order for back pay from the Transpor-
tation Security Administration (TSA). Doc. 2. The case was re-
ferred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending 
that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 5 at 4. 
Petitioner timely objected to the report. Doc. 6. 
The court reviews the objected -to portions of a magistrate 
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. 
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, the “objections 
must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, 
conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the 
district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright , 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th 
Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass 
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 
Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en-
title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis-
trate judge without a compelling reason . See Cupit v. Whitley , 28 
F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). When there have been no 
timely objections to a report, or the objections are improper, “the 
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 
of the r ecord.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes 
to 1983 amendment. 
Petitioner first objects to the referral of this matter to a mag-
istrate judge without her consent . Doc. 6 at 1. But district courts PageID #: 
<pageID>
- 2 - 
may designate a magistrate judge to submit proposed findings of 
facts and recommendations for the disposition of a matter to the 
district court judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Jackson v. Cain , 
864 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1989) . Consent from the parties is 
not required for such referrals. See Jackson, 864 F.2d at 1242; 
Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 230 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) . 
Accordingly, petitioner’s first objection is overruled. 
Next, petitioner objects that the Merit Systems Protection 
Board (MSPB) does not have jurisdiction over the petition be-
cause this action concerns back pay and is not a personnel dispute. 
Doc. 6 at 2. Petitioner is incorrect. The MSPB has jurisdiction to 
“order agencies to . . . to provide back pay” as part of its “review 
of major adverse personnel actions.” Zummer v. Sallet , 37 F.4th 
996, 1003–04 (5th Cir. 2022). Petitioner cannot separate her back -
pay claim from her underlying suspension. Accordingly, peti-
tioner’s second objection is overruled. 
Petitioner also objects that the MSPB violates the separation 
of powers by forcing her constitutional claims to route through an 
executive agency. Doc. 6 at 2 –3. But petitioner cannot create a 
separation -of-powers issue by labeling a back -pay claim as a con-
stitutional claim . Moreover, it is well established that “Congress 
has the authority to require administrative exhaustion before al-
lowing a suit against the Government, even for a constitutional 
violation.” United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. , 553 U.S. 
1, 9 (2008) . Thus, even if petitioner had properly alleged a consti-
tutional claim, that claim must be pursued through the MSPB, not 
the district court. Accordingly, petitioner’s third objection is 
overruled. 
Finally, petitioner objects that the Fourth and Thirteenth 
Amendment s to the U.S. Constitution give this court jurisdiction 
over her claims. Doc. 6 at 3–4. But again , reframing her back-pay 
dispute as involuntary servitude doe s not create subject matter 
jurisdiction where the CSRA has channeled that claim to the 
MSPB. Accordingly, petitioner’s fourth objection is overruled. PageID #: 
<pageID>
- 3 - 
Having reviewed the report de novo and being satisfied that 
there is no error, the court accepts the report’s findings and rec-
ommendations. The petition is dismissed without prejudice for 
lack of subject -matter jurisdiction. Any pending motions are de-
nied as moot. 
So ordered by the court on May 27, 2026 . 
 
 J. CAMPBELL BARKER 
United States District Judge PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight