Marlin D. Lowery v. CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SPENCER BYRD, Cheboygan School Superintendent,…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARLIN D. LOWERY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SPENCER
BYRD, Cheboygan School Superintendent,
MARLENE ALEXANDER, Cheboygan Schools Hu-
man Resource Director, LEO UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE AGENCY, JULIA DALE, UIA Director,
UIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TERRY BURNS, UIA In-
ternal Controls Division Administrator,
UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEES, 1-3, STATE OF
MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE AGENCY,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1590
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan in No. 1:24-cv-11604-LVP-
PTM, Judge Linda V. Parker.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

LOWERY v. CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2
Marlin D. Lowery filed this suit against various state
and local officials and entities in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 regarding denial of unemployment benefits. The
district court dismissed, and Mr. Lowery filed a motion for
reconsideration (which remains pending) and a notice of
appeal directed to this court. In response to this court’s
April 14, 2025 order to show cause, appellees argue the ap-
peal should be dismissed. Mr. Lowery files an opening brief
but not a separate response.
In general, we only have authority to review decisions
from district courts in cases that arise under the patent
laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to
the district court from the United States Patent and Trade-
mark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or cases that involve cer-
tain damages claims against the United States “not
exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see
§ 1295(a)(2). This case does not fall within that limited ju-
risdiction. Under the circumstances, we conclude transfer
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1631.1
Accordingly,
1 Appellees argue, in part, that the appeal should be
dismissed because of Mr. Lowery’s pending motion for re-
consideration. Though that may render the notice of ap-
peal not yet effective, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), we
deem it more appropriate to transfer than dismiss under
the circumstances. Cf. Slep-Tone Ent. Corp. v. Karaoke
Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 717–18 (6th Cir. 2015)
(“[W]e stay the appeal pending the district court’s resolu-
tion of [the] pending post-judgment motion.” (collecting
cases)).
Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

LOWERY v. CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
This appeal and all case filings are transferred to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
May 28, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 05/28/2025

-- 3 of 3 --