Livia M. Scotto v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LIVIA M. SCOTTO,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1187
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-4076, Judge Michael P. Allen.
______________________
Decided: November 14, 2024
______________________
L IVIA M. SCOTTO, Valrico, FL, pro se.
J OSEPH ALAN P IXLEY , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , L OREN MISHA
P REHEIM .
______________________
Case: 24-1187 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 11/14/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

SCOTTO v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before REYNA, T ARANTO, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Pro se appellant Livia M. Scotto appeals a decision
from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims in which the Veterans Court dismissed Ms. Scotto’s
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons,
we dismiss the present appeal.
BACKGROUND
In June 2023, Ms. Scotto filed an appeal before the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet-
erans Court”). Scotto v. McDonough, No. 23-4076, 2023 WL
6057374, at *1 (Vet. App. Sept. 18, 2023) (“Decision”). In
her Notice of Appeal, Ms. Scotto listed February 19, 2019,
as the date of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) de-
cision that she sought to appeal. Id. In another section of
the Notice of Appeal, Ms. Scotto listed the date of the Board
decision as January 17, 2023, along with other handwrit-
ten notes stating “UNKNOWN” and “NO DECISION WAS
SENT.” Id. The Notice of Appeal did not provide any ad-
ditional information on any Board decision Ms. Scotto
sought to appeal. Id.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”) moved
to dismiss the underlying appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
noting that the Board did not issue a decision relating to
Ms. Scotto on either of the dates Ms. Scotto listed. Id. Be-
fore deciding the Secretary’s motion to dismiss, the Veter-
ans Court provided Ms. Scotto with multiple opportunities
to identify a Board decision she sought to challenge.
Appx1.1 Ms. Scotto failed to do so. Decision, at *1.
1 “Appx” refers to the appendix accompanying the
Secretary’s responding brief.
Case: 24-1187 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 11/14/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

SCOTTO v. MCDONOUGH 3
On September 18, 2023, the Veterans Court dismissed
Ms. Scotto’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Veterans
Court explained that if a claimant seeks review before the
Veterans Court of a Board decision, there must be a final
Board decision at issue. Id. (citing 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252,
7266(a)). The Veterans Court explained that the Board did
not issue any decision concerning Ms. Scotto on the dates
that Ms. Scotto identified, and that Ms. Scotto failed to
identify any other purported decision she wished to appeal.
Id.
After the September 2023 decision, Ms. Scotto filed ad-
ditional documents with the Veterans Court, which it in-
terpreted as a motion to reconsider the dismissal and a
motion for recusal. Appx1. In October 2023, the Veterans
Court denied the motions. Appx2. The Veterans Court
noted that Ms. Scotto (1) once again failed to identify a
Board decision she sought to challenge and (2) failed to
raise any bases for challenging the assigned Veterans
Court judge’s impartiality or fair judgment that would re-
quire recusal of the judge. Appx2. The Veterans Court en-
tered judgment against Ms. Scotto. Appx2.
Ms. Scotto appeals.
D ISCUSSION
This court’s jurisdiction to review a decision of the Vet-
erans Court is limited. We review the validity of a Veter-
ans Court decision “on a rule of law or of any statute or
regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof” that the Vet-
erans Court relied on in making its decision. 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(a). Additionally, this court may not, unless a con-
stitutional challenge is presented, “review (A) a challenge
to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or
regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38
U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).
On appeal, Ms. Scotto raises no legal argument, nor
does she present a constitutional argument, concerning the
Veterans Court’s September 2023 decision. Ms. Scotto
Case: 24-1187 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 11/14/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

SCOTTO v. MCDONOUGH 4
thus fails to raise a challenge to the Veterans Court’s Sep-
tember 2023 decision that would fall within the narrow
confines of our appellate jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C.
§§ 7292(a), (d)(2). First, Ms. Scotto lists various statutes in
her filings before this court, such as laws governing war
damages and congressional reporting, but does not make a
discernible argument as to why those statutes are relevant
to the Veterans Court’s September 2023 decision. See Ap-
pellant’s Informal Br. 2 (citing 50 U.S.C. § 515).2 We fail
to see how those statutes, which the Veterans Court never
relied on, let alone discussed, in its September 2023 deci-
sion, are relevant. Second, Ms. Scotto provides extraneous
information in her filings but does not explain how that in-
formation relates to the Veterans Court’s September 2023
decision. See, e.g., Appellant’s Formal Reply Br. 7 (discuss-
ing “criminal collusion,” “interference with employment
contracts,” and “larsceny” [sic]). Even with a lenient read-
ing of her filings, we cannot discern any connection be-
tween these extraneous statements and the Veterans
Court’s September 2023 decision. We thus have no juris-
diction over Ms. Scotto’s appeal. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7292(a),
(d)(2).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Scotto’s appeal is dis-
missed for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
2 To the extent Ms. Scotto challenges on appeal the
Veterans Court’s October 2023 decision, Ms. Scotto fails to
raise any discernable challenge to that decision that falls
within our appellate jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7292(a),
(d)(2).
Case: 24-1187 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 11/14/2024

-- 4 of 4 --