This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions. Two of the opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and one comes in a military records correction case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Bautista v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Remegia G. Bautista appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) denying her petition for a writ of mandamus. Bautista v. Collins, No. 24-3615, 2025 WL 877562 (Vet. App. Mar. 21, 2025) (“Decision”). We affirm.
In re Gamble (Nonprecedential)
Oliver Wendel Gamble appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) that affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 10, 13–15, and 18 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/490,077 (the “’077 application”) as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Mr. Gamble also appeals the Board’s denial of a request for rehearing on claims 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20, newly rejected by the Board as indefinite under § 112(b). Because Mr. Gamble forfeited any substantive argument both in this Court and before the Board, we affirm.
Myer v. United States (Nonprecedential)
In March 2019, Turner Myer III filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking review of a decision by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Shortly after filing, his complaint was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and, eventually, to the United States Court of Federal Claims.
On July 17, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims ordered Mr. Myer to file a transfer or amended complaint pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) on or before August 14, 2025. After that order was returned undeliverable, the trial court cured the delivery issue and ordered Mr. Myer to file the required transfer complaint by October 31, 2025. The trial court’s order included a warning notifying Mr. Myer that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his complaint pursuant to RCFC 41(b). Mr. Myer later sought to file an unrelated document, prompting the trial court to sua sponte extend the deadline to file the transfer complaint to December 15, 2025, and to again warn Mr. Myer that failure to comply would result in dismissal. On December 22, 2025, after Mr. Myer failed to timely file the required transfer complaint, the trial court dismissed his complaint for failure to prosecute his claims pursuant to RCFC 41(b). See S.A. 53. Mr. Myer timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
We review the trial court’s decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute for abuse of discretion. Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1990). On appeal, Mr. Myer does not dispute the trial court’s grounds for dismissal or otherwise suggest error in its dismissal for failure to prosecute. Instead, he argues the merits of the claims in his underlying lawsuit. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 5–7 (arguing facts regarding his discharge from the Air Force), 8–9 (arguing discrimination). Nor do we see any basis for Mr. Myer’s appeal: the trial court repeatedly ordered Mr. Myer to submit the required document and warned him that dismissal was the consequence for failure to comply. Under such circumstances, dismissal for failure to prosecute is within the trial court’s discretion.
We have considered Mr. Myer’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Ulik-Pritchard v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Both Ellen J. Pritchard (Ms. Pritchard) and Linda Kay Ulik-Pritchard (Ms. Ulik-Pritchard) seek to be recognized as veteran Randall W. Pritchard’s surviving spouse for purposes of claiming dependency and indemnity compensation. Appellant Ms. Pritchard appeals the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) vacating the decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that recognized her as the surviving spouse. See Ulik-Pritchard v. Collins, No. 23-5548, 2025 WL 1911825, at *1 (Vet. App. July 11, 2025) (Decision). Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss.