Opinions
on

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order granting an agreed motion to dismiss. This morning, the court released six nonprecedential opinions, three Rule 36 summary affirmances, and one nonprecedential order. Four of the opinions come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims: a forfeiture case, an Indian Tucker Act case, a tax refund case, and a case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; one comes in a restoration rights case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; and the other comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Today’s order also grants an agreed motion to dismiss. Here are the introductions to the opinions, along with links to the summary affirmances and the agreed dismissals.  

Bass v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Robert C. Bass appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because we agree with the Claims Court that Mr. Bass’s claims accrued in 2013 and are time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, we affirm the court’s dismissal.

Ciers v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

RaShawn Ciers petitions for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) affirming the dismissal of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Holland v. Collins (Nonprecedential)

Lee Holland, Jr. seeks review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”). As we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.

McCaster v. United States (Nonprecedential)

In this unusual case, the appellant contends that the Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) misidentified him as the plaintiff and that as a consequence the court denied the true plaintiff, The Mathias El Tribe (“the Tribe”), its day in court.

* * *

We have considered Mr. McCaster’s remaining arguments but find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the Claims Court’s February 19, 2026, order.

Rouzard v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Diansky Rouzard filed an action in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) in which, as now relevant, he sought refunds for what he alleged were overpayments of income tax he made to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for two tax years. The Claims Court dismissed his claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Rouzard v. United States, 179 Fed. Cl. 209 (2025) (Decision). We now affirm that dismissal.

Zahler v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Mr. Jordan Zahler filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) seeking damages from the United States on the theory that, in an earlier civil action, a district court was required to award him default judgment. The Claims Court dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Claims Court concluded that Mr. Zahler failed to identify a money-mandating source of law entitling him to the damages sought, a requirement of its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, and dismissed the complaint. Mr. Zahler appeals. We affirm.

Rule 36 Summary Affirmances

Dismissals