Sylvester Seal Murray v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SYLVESTER SEAL MURRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1314
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00205-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The United States moves to dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. The government states that Sylvester Seal
Murray indicated he opposes the motion, but the court has
not received a response from him.
Case: 23-1314 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

MURRAY v. US 2
On October 5, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims dis-
missed Mr. Murray’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and
entered judgment. On October 18, 2022, the Court of Fed-
eral Claims issued an order rejecting a document submit-
ted by Mr. Murray entitled “Plaintiff Initial Disclosures
Pursuant to Rules 26 (1) (A) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures Motion.” (Capitalization omitted). On Decem-
ber 12, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims received Mr.
Murray’s notice of appeal indicating his intent to appeal
“the [ ] dismissal” and the “final judgment or order entered
in this action on October 5, 2022.”
Section 2522 of title 28 of the U.S. Code provides that
review by this court of a decision of the Court of Federal
Claims “shall be obtained by filing a notice of appeal with
the clerk of the Court of Federal Claims within the time
and in the manner prescribed for appeals to United States
courts of appeals from the United States district courts.”
An appeal from a final judgment in a district court proceed-
ing involving the United States must be filed within 60
days from entry of the judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1);
see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). We have held that statutory
deadline is jurisdictional for appeals from the Court of Fed-
eral Claims and thus cannot be waived or equitably tolled.
Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (citations omitted); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551
U.S. 205, 209 (2007).
Here, no submission by Mr. Murray satisfies the re-
quirements to obtain review by this court over the Court of
Federal Claims’ judgment. Mr. Murray’s notice of appeal
was received by the Court of Federal Claims outside of the
60-day deadline. Marandola, 518 F.3d at 915 (“A notice of
appeal must be received by the deadline, for the Rules re-
quire filing with the clerk of court by the due date.” (Cita-
tion omitted)). And there is no basis to say that Mr.
Murray’s rejected October 17, 2022, submission “indi-
cate[d] the litigant’s intent to seek appellate review,”
Case: 23-1314 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

MURRAY v. US 3
Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (citations omit-
ted). We must therefore dismiss his appeal.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The government’s motion to dismiss is granted.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
March 8, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-1314 Document: 8 Page: 3 Filed: 03/08/2023

-- 3 of 3 --