This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The first two opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fourth opinion comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, one transfers a case, and one is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders, as well as links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.
Wonge v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Opinion)
David Wonge appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying his claim for an earlier effective date for the award of benefits. Because Mr. Wonge raises only factual issues we do not have jurisdiction to review, we dismiss.
Rodriguez, Jr. v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Jesus Rodriguez, Jr., seeks to receive earlier effective dates for grants of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bilateral hearing loss, to reopen other previously denied claims for service connection, and to receive service connection for residuals of a fractured right toe. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied those claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirmed. Rodriguez v. McDonough, No. 22-5348, 2023 WL 4285967, at *1 (Vet. App. June 30, 2023) (Decision). Mr. Rodriguez moved for the full court to review that decision, and the Veterans Court denied that motion. Rodriguez v. McDonough, No. 22-5348, 2023 WL 7011736, at *1 (Vet. App. Oct. 25, 2023). Mr. Rodriguez appeals pro se. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part and dismiss-in-part.
Dixon-Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Carla Dixon-Johnson petitions for review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) that affirmed the decision of the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) that (1) following her termination from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) during her probationary period, she was ineligible to receive an annuity supplement; and that (2) her high-three average salary under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”) was correctly calculated. Suppl. App. 9.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
D’Agostino v. United States (Nonprecedential Opinion)
Steven D’Agostino appeals the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims that dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. D’Agostino v. United States, No. 1:23-cv-01042, 2023 WL 8271800 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2023); Appx. 3–8, 9.1 For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
In re Zebra Technologies Corp. (Nonprecedential Order)
Zebra Technologies Corporation petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”). Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (collectively, “IV”) oppose.
IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied.
Simpson v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Order)
Joseph Simpson filed an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging constitutional violations regarding criminal charges in state court. For district court appeals, this court generally only has jurisdiction over patent cases, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $ 10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(c)(1), 1295(a)(2). Here, Mr. Simpson’s case falls outside of the court’s jurisdiction. We conclude that transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
The appeal and all case filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.