context: . The administrative judge's decision is the final decision of the Board, and our jurisdiction over these appeals arises under 28 U.S.C. SS 1291. In the proceedings below, Twyman and Garcia also asserted discrimination claims, but they voluntarily dismissed those claims before the district court granted summary judgment. Our jurisdiction is not affected by the dismissal of the discrimination claims.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: discussing the jurisdictional issues arising in appeals from the Board and holding that in a mixed case involving a good-faith discrimination claim and a nondiscrimination claim, the district court does not lose jurisdiction over the nondiscrimination claim when the discrimination claim is disposed of
citation_a.sentence: See Afifi v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 924 F.2d 61 (4th Cir.1991) (discussing the jurisdictional issues arising in appeals from the Board and holding that in a mixed case involving a good-faith discrimination claim and a nondiscrimination claim, the district court does not lose jurisdiction over the nondiscrimination claim when the discrimination claim is disposed of); see also Porsche Cars N.A., Inc. v. Porsche.net, 302 F.3d 248, 255 (4th Cir.2002) (noting that there is “no support for the ... proposition that the conditions that create subject-matter jurisdiction must necessarily persist throughout the life of a case”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 302 F.3d 248, 255
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that there is "no support for the ... proposition that the conditions that create subject-matter jurisdiction must necessarily persist throughout the life of a case"
citation_b.sentence: See Afifi v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 924 F.2d 61 (4th Cir.1991) (discussing the jurisdictional issues arising in appeals from the Board and holding that in a mixed case involving a good-faith discrimination claim and a nondiscrimination claim, the district court does not lose jurisdiction over the nondiscrimination claim when the discrimination claim is disposed of); see also Porsche Cars N.A., Inc. v. Porsche.net, 302 F.3d 248, 255 (4th Cir.2002) (noting that there is “no support for the ... proposition that the conditions that create subject-matter jurisdiction must necessarily persist throughout the life of a case”).