Somona Lofton v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SOMONA LOFTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1105
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00923-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the
United States Court of Federal Claims’s judgment dismiss-
ing Somona Lofton’s case. Ms. Lofton files a document
docketed at ECF No. 31, which the court construes as her
opposition to the motion.
On June 4, 2024, Ms. Lofton filed a complaint with the
Court of Federal Claims, appearing to stem from an
Case: 25-1105 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

LOFTON v. US 2
incident that same day. On June 19, 2024, the court
warned Ms. Lofton that if she did not pay the filing fee or
submit a completed motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) within 30 days “this action shall be dis-
missed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under
Rule 41 of [the] Rules of the United States Court of Federal
Claims [(Rule 41)].” Dkt. No. 5 at 1.1 On August 5, 2024,
having received no filing from Ms. Lofton, the court ordered
the case dismissed without prejudice under that rule.
We review dismissals under Rule 41(b) for abuse of dis-
cretion. Claude E. Atkins Enters., Inc. v. United States, 899
F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, despite
Ms. Lofton’s unsupported assertions to the contrary, the
trial court found that her complaint was filed “with-
out . . . a completed IFP application,” Dkt. No. 5 at 1. The
court then provided Ms. Lofton 30 days to respond and
clearly explained to her the consequence of failing to do
so—namely, dismissal of her case without prejudice. Un-
der the circumstances of this case, summary affirmance is
appropriate because “no substantial question regarding the
outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17
F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
1 The order also directed Ms. Lofton to show cause
why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction because the claims appeared di-
rected to torts allegedly committed by parties other than
the United States. Cf. Lofton v. United States, No. 2023-
1181, 2023 WL 3881362 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2023); Lofton v.
United States, No.2023-1175, 2023 WL 3220932 (Fed. Cir.
May 3, 2023).
Case: 25-1105 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 01/29/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

LOFTON v. US 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States’s motion for summary affir-
mance is granted, and the Court of Federal Claims’s judg-
ment is summarily affirmed.
(2) All other pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
January 29, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1105 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 01/29/2025

-- 3 of 3 --