Robert Martin v. Sloan D. Gibson, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROBERT MARTIN,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
SLOAN D. GIBSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________
2014-7047
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 12-2250, Judge Margaret C.
Bartley.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge, WALLACH and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Robert Martin moves to stay proceedings and moves
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Secretary of
Veterans Affairs (Secretary) opposes the motion to stay
Case: 14-7047 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2014

-- 1 of 3 --

MARTIN v. GIBSON 2
and moves to dismiss the appeal or summarily affirm the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veter-
ans Claims (Veterans Court).
On May 10, 2011, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(Board) denied Martin’s claim for nonservice connected
pension benefits. The Veterans Court affirmed that
decision on March 8, 2012, and this court subsequently
dismissed Martin’s appeal for lack of prosecution. On
May 24, 2012, Martin filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Board’s May 10, 2011 decision with the Chairman of
the Board. The Chairman denied Martin’s motion. Mar-
tin appealed that denial to the Veterans Court, which
dismissed Martin’s appeal because it lacked jurisdiction,
and the appeal was barred by res judicata. This appeal
followed.
Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, inter
alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as
a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the
outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17
F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, it is clear that
summary affirmance is warranted.
This court has held that the Veterans Court does not
have jurisdiction to review the Chairman’s denial of
reconsideration under circumstances similar to these. In
Mayer v. Brown, we explained that while the Veterans
Court may have jurisdiction to review actions of the
Chairman in cases where it already has jurisdiction by
virtue of a timely appeal from a final board decision, it
does not independently have jurisdiction over such ac-
tions. 37 F.3d 618, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Since there was
no timely filed appeal from a final board decision from
which the Veterans Court could exercise jurisdiction in
this case, the court correctly held that it lacked jurisdic-
tion over the Chairman’s decision.
Moreover, to the extent Martin was again seeking re-
view of the Board’s May 2011 decision, he had already
Case: 14-7047 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2014

-- 2 of 3 --

MARTIN v. GIBSON 3
sought review of that decision with the Veterans Court
and this court. This court has long established that the
principles of finality and res judicata are applicable to
veterans’ claims. See Routen v. West, 142 F.3d 1434, 1437
(Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) (“The purpose of the rule
of finality is to preclude repetitive and belated readjudica-
tion of veterans’ benefit claims.”).
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s24
Case: 14-7047 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 07/16/2014

-- 3 of 3 --