Case ID: f-appx_416/html/0901-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos A. ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 2011-5048.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    April 5, 2011.
    Carlos A. Alford, Wilmington, NC, pro se.
    Joseph A. Pixley, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.
   ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The United States moves to dismiss Carlos A Alford’s appeal as premature.

On January 31, 2011, Alford filed a document which the Court of Federal Claims treated as a notice of appeal to this court. At that time, Alford’s case was still pending before the trial court.

The court’s jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Court of Federal Claims is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Section 1295(a)(3) provides that the court has jurisdiction over “an appeal from a final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims” (emphasis added). “A ‘final decision’ generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945).

The Court of Federal Claims had not entered or announced a judgment before Alford filed his appeal. Because the case was still pending in the Court of Federal Claims, we must dismiss the appeal. The court notes that the Court of Federal Claims subsequently entered final judgment in this matter on March 9, 2011, and thus he may file an appeal within 60 days of that date.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The United States’ motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.