This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which had dismissed an appeal as moot. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential orders this morning and late yesterday. One dismisses a petition for review for untimely filing; one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus for untimely filing; one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case; one summarily affirms; and one grants a petition to withdraw a petition for writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Mynatt v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

Kenneth J. Mynatt seeks review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“board”) dismissing his appeal as moot. See Mynatt v. Dep’t of the Treas., No. AT-0752-21-0278-I-2 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 30, 2021). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Carson-Potter v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Michelle R. Carson-Potter appeals a memorandum decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision not to reinstate Mrs. Carson-Potter’s dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits. Carson-Potter v. McDonough, No. 20-2883, 2021 WL 3822020 (Vet. App. Aug. 27, 2021). Because the Veterans Court’s decision is not contrary to Mrs. Carson-Potter’s asserted equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment, we affirm.

Harris v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential Order)

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(d) and Federal Circuit Rule 25(h) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.

In re Gallogly (Nonprecedential Order)

Dr. Gallogly has not met those requirements here. “Mandamus relief is not appropriate when a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal process.” In re Fermin, 859 F. App’x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal . . . .”). Because Dr. Gallogly failed to raise her challenges to the decisions of the Court of Federal Claims by way of a timely filed direct appeal, we deny her request for mandamus.



The petition is denied, and any pending motions are denied as moot.

In re Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings (Nonprecedential Order)

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (“LabCorp”) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its order denying LabCorp leave to file a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Ravgen, Inc. opposes. We deny LabCorp’s petition.

Flores-Vazquez v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Order)

Enrique M. Flores-Vazquez appeals from an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) dismissing his petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari that he filed at the Veterans Court. Having considered the Veterans Court’s decision and Mr. Flores-Vazquez’s informal opening brief, we summarily affirm.




(1) The Veterans Court’s judgment is summarily affirmed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

In re BitFenix Co. Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)

BitFenix Co. Ltd. submits notice that it believes its petition for a writ of mandamus is now moot, which the court construes as a request to withdraw its petition.

Upon consideration thereof,


BitFenix’s petition is withdrawn.