Jeffrey Andrews, Wesley Andrews, Colton Andrews, Ellery Andrews, Lynn Andrews v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JEFFREY ANDREWS, WESLEY ANDREWS,
COLTON ANDREWS, ELLERY ANDREWS, LYNN
ANDREWS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1926
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01088-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The United States moves to dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. Appellants have not responded.
On February 28, 2025, the United States Court of Fed-
eral Claims entered judgment dismissing appellants’ com-
plaint. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration on
Case: 25-1926 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 09/29/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

ANDREWS v. US 2
March 27, 2025, which the court denied on April 8, 2025.
Appellants then submitted a “motion for clarification,” ask-
ing the court to opine on whether a taking occurred. On
April 29, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims denied that re-
quest, stating that it was “not a request for clarification of
anything in this court’s prior orders” and the question was
“wholly irrelevant” to the jurisdictional issue of the case.
ECF No. 3-5 at 1. On June 20, 2025, appellants filed a no-
tice of appeal directed to the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Second Circuit, which was rejected on June
26, 2025 for failure to designate this court as the court of
appeals, followed by a second notice of appeal directed to
this court filed on July 9, 2025.1
The timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final deci-
sion by the Court of Federal Claims is a jurisdictional re-
quirement that cannot be waived and is not subject to
equitable tolling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2522; Marandola v.
United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); cf.
1 While the initial notice of appeal directed to the
Second Circuit was filed within 60 days from the trial
court’s order denying their motion for clarification and per-
haps should not have been rejected for failing to designate
this court, see, e.g., United States v. Musa, 946 F.2d 1297,
1301 (7th Cir. 1991), we see no basis for taking further ac-
tion or allowing an appeal based on that submission. Even
if the trial court’s April 29, 2025 order could be deemed a
“final decision” subject to appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3), we
can conceive of no non-frivolous basis to appeal such ruling
under the circumstances presented. See generally Amara
v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241, 253 (2d Cir. 2022) (noting an
“appeal from a later order does not give us jurisdiction to
hear an untimely appeal from an earlier order, which was
itself an appealable final order” (cleaned up)).
Case: 25-1926 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 09/29/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

ANDREWS v. US 3
Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011). To be
timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the Court of
Federal Claims within 60 days of the entry of a final deci-
sion, see 28 U.S.C. § 2107. Certain post-judgment motions,
including timely motions for reconsideration, toll the time
to file an appeal until the court disposes of such motions.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C). But
appellants’ “motion for clarification” is not one. See Du-
rango Assocs., Inc. v. Reflange, Inc., 912 F.2d 1423, 1425
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (noting that a “second post-judgment mo-
tion . . . will not further stay the period for appeal”). Be-
cause appellants did not file their notice of appeal within
60 days from the order denying the timely motion for re-
consideration, we must dismiss as untimely.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’s motion is granted to the extent
that this appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
September 29, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1926 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 09/29/2025

-- 3 of 3 --