Opinions
on

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade and four nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders, three granting summary affirmances and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. v. United States (Precedential)

Magid Glove & Safety Manufacturing Co. LLC (“Magid”) appeals a decision of the United States Court of International Trade regarding the tariff classification of certain knit gloves with partial plastic coating. Because we conclude that the gloves are properly classified under heading 6116 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, we affirm.

Park v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Donald Park, a veteran of the United States Navy, and his wife, Kathleen, appeal pro se from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”), dismissing their complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims Court held that the Parks’ claims were time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. We affirm.

Jones v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Maxwell Jones appeals an order of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denying his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment. We affirm.

Ling v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential)

Bruce A. Ling, Jr. once again seeks compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”), based on his allegations that a seasonal influenza vaccination he received in November 2011 caused him to develop GuillainBarré Syndrome (“GBS”). The special master denied his claim, finding that Ling did not present sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegation that he suffered from GBS. Ling v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-61V, 2021 WL 3913935, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 17, 2021) (“Decision”). The United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissed Ling’s untimely motion for review but concluded that, even if the motion had been timely, the special master’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Ling v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20- 61V (Fed. Cl. Mar. 3, 2022), R.A. 6–12. Thereafter, Ling filed two motions for reconsideration, which the Claims Court denied. Ling then filed a petition for review in this court.

For the following reasons, we dismiss Ling’s appeal.

Castillo v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Robert Castillo appeals pro se a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Castillo’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The Veterans Court determined that while the petition was pending, the Department of Veterans Affairs granted the relief sought by Mr. Castillo, thereby rendering Mr. Castillo’s petition moot. We affirm.

Summary Affirmances

Dismissal