Caustin Lee McLaughlin v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CAUSTIN LEE MCLAUGHLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1522
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00141-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Caustin Lee McLaughlin appeals from the United
States Court of Federal Claims’s order transferring his
case to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. We directed the
parties to address this court’s jurisdiction, and in response
the United States urges dismissal. Mr. McLaughlin has
not filed a response.
This court ordinarily only has jurisdiction to review a
“final decision” of the Court of Federal Claims, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3), which is one that “ends the litigation on the
Case: 25-1522 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

MCLAUGHLIN v. US 2
merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute
the judgment,” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
(1945). The transfer order did not end the litigation, which
instead proceeds in the District of Maryland. See Subsalve
USA Corp. v. Watson Mfg., Inc., 462 F.3d 41, 47 (1st Cir.
2006) (“[E]very court of appeals to have confronted [the is-
sue] has concluded that section 1631 transfer orders are
not immediately appealable.” (collecting cases)).
Mr. McLaughlin cites no source of authority that would
authorize such interlocutory review. The Court of Federal
Claims has not certified the interlocutory order for imme-
diate appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2). And while 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(d)(4)(A) provides this court with jurisdiction to re-
view a district court order regarding transfer to the Court
of Federal Claims, that statute does not authorize our re-
view of a Court of Federal Claims order transferring to dis-
trict court. Emiabata v. United States, No. 2021-1703,
2022 WL 1055435, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).
Accordingly
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 16, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1522 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 2 of 2 --