Robert G. Thornton v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROBERT G. THORNTON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1421
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 19-7749, Senior Judge Mary J.
Schoelen.
______________________
Decided: September 8, 2025
______________________
ROBERT G. T HORNTON , Twentynine Palms, CA, pro se.
SEAN K ELLY G RIFFIN, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
WILLIAM J AMES G RIMALDI, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY ,
YAAKOV R OTH .
______________________
Case: 25-1421 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

THORNTON v. COLLINS 2
Before P ROST and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges, and
ANDREWS , District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Robert G. Thornton appeals an order of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying
his motion for full court review. Because we lack jurisdic-
tion over the issues Mr. Thornton raises on appeal, we dis-
miss.
BACKGROUND
This case is Mr. Thornton’s fifth appeal to us stemming
from a claim he filed for service-connected disability bene-
fits in 2007. Mr. Thornton’s extensive history of pursuing
his claim is detailed in our prior decision. Thornton v.
McDonough, No. 22-1618, 2022 WL 9597569, at *1–2
(Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2022). Relevant here, this court dis-
missed, for lack of jurisdiction, Mr. Thornton’s appeal of a
December 21, 2021 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals (“Board”). We held that Mr. Thornton’s arguments
involved a challenge to the Board’s factual findings that his
earlier appeal to the Board was untimely. Id. at *2.
Our mandate in the prior appeal issued on Decem-
ber 14, 2022, with the Veterans Court’s mandate following
on March 8, 2023. Appx. 8.2 Mr. Thornton petitioned for a
writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was de-
nied. Thornton v. McDonough, 143 S. Ct. 1782 (2023).
Mr. Thornton thereafter filed a motion with the Veterans
Court to recall mandate and reinstate his appeal, and a
motion to recuse a certain Veterans Court judge from
1 Honorable Richard G. Andrews, District Judge,
United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
sitting by designation.
2 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed by
Mr. Thornton.
Case: 25-1421 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 09/08/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

THORNTON v. COLLINS 3
considering further proceedings. Thornton v. McDonough,
No. 19-7749, 2024 WL 4589793, at *1 (Vet. App. Oct. 28,
2024).
After a series of rulings, the Veterans Court denied
Mr. Thornton’s motions to recall mandate and to disqualify
the Veterans Court judge. Id. at *2–3. Mr. Thornton then
filed a motion for full Veterans Court review. Appx. 11–12.
On December 11, 2024, the Veterans Court denied
Mr. Thornton’s motion for full court review, finding that
Mr. Thornton had not shown that “such action is necessary
to secure or maintain uniformity of the [Veterans] Court’s
decisions or to resolve a question of exceptional im-
portance.” Id. (citing U.S. Vet. App. R. 35(c)).
Mr. Thornton then timely appealed to this court.
D ISCUSSION
Our “jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans
Court is limited.” Wanless v. Shinseki, 618 F.3d 1333, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction to “review . . . any
challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any
interpretation thereof” and to “interpret constitutional and
statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary
to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Absent a constitutional
issue, however, we lack jurisdiction to “review (A) a chal-
lenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law
or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.”
Id. § 7292(d)(2).
Mr. Thornton’s appeal does not present any issue
within the scope of our jurisdiction. Even under a liberal
construction of his briefs, Mr. Thornton fails to show why
the Veterans Court erred in its December 11, 2024 order
denying full court review.
Mr. Thornton seems to argue that the Veterans Court’s
December 11, 2024 order “involve[d] the validity or inter-
pretation of a statute or regulation” based on references to
38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) and the “Judge Made Rule of Law-
Case: 25-1421 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 09/08/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

THORNTON v. COLLINS 4
Presumption of Regularity.” Appellant’s Informal Br. 1.
These appear to be arguments relevant to his prior appeal
that present issues of fact over which we lack jurisdiction.
In the prior appeal to this court, Mr. Thornton argued that
the Board committed an error of law under 38 U.S.C.
§ 7104(a) “based on de novo fact finding” regarding the un-
timeliness of his submissions. SAppx. 174.3 Mr. Thornton
had also argued that he rebutted the presumption of regu-
larity to establish the timeliness of his submissions.
SAppx. 153–163. We held that Mr. Thornton’s prior appeal
raised only issues involving “a challenge to the fact finding
that Mr. Thornton’s appeal was untimely,” which we
lacked jurisdiction to review. Thornton, 2022 WL 9597569,
at *2.
Moreover, none of Mr. Thornton’s arguments concern
the Veterans Court’s decision to deny Mr. Thornton’s mo-
tion for full court review. The Veterans Court’s December
11, 2024 order did not address or otherwise depend on any
issue of validity or interpretation of any statute or regula-
tion, much less those invoked by Mr. Thornton. Rather, the
Veterans Court’s order involved a straightforward applica-
tion of Rule 35 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims to the facts in his case. Appx. 11–12. Mr. Thornton
fails to raise a challenge to the Veterans Court’s December
11, 2024 order that falls within our narrow appellate juris-
diction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), (d)(2).
Mr. Thornton also appears to allege various constitu-
tional violations, including violations of his due process
rights. Appellant’s Informal Br. 26. However, the denial
of a request for full Veterans Court review does not itself
violate due process. See Arnesen v. Principi, 300 F.3d 1353,
1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Mr. Thornton fails to identify any
other instances or issues properly before us in these
3 “SAppx.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
by the government.
Case: 25-1421 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 09/08/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

THORNTON v. COLLINS 5
proceedings that would have deprived him of due process.
Helfer v. West, 174 F.3d 1332, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To
the extent that [a veteran] has simply put a ‘due process’
label on his contention that he should have prevailed on his
. . . claim, his claim is constitutional in name only.”).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Thornton’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Mr. Thornton’s appeal
is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1421 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 09/08/2025

-- 5 of 5 --