NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CESAR R. VAZQUEZ TORRES,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1165

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00085-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s December 18, 2023 order to 

show cause, the United States urges dismissal of this appeal. Cesar R. Vazquez Torres opposes dismissal.

Mr. Vazquez Torres filed a complaint at the United 

States Court of Federal Claims, challenging decisions of 

the Army Board for Correction of Military Records and the 

Army Discharge Review Board. On October 17, 2023, the 

trial court affirmed the denial of disability retirement 

Case: 24-1165 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 02/28/2024
2 VAZQUEZ TORRES v. US

benefits but also ordered additional briefing on Mr. 

Vazquez Torres’s requests for back pay and a promotion. 

Mr. Vazquez Torres then filed a motion to “transfer” to this 

court, which was construed as a motion for certification of 

an interlocutory appeal and denied by the trial court on October 23, 2023. The next day, Mr. Vazquez Torres filed a 

motion to “find the back pay and rank upgrade portion of 

this case as moot,” for entry of final judgment, and to

“transfer” to this court. ECF No. 9 at 26–27. Before the 

trial court could address Mr. Vazquez Torres’s motion, he

filed a notice of appeal from the October 17, 2023 order. In 

light of the notice of appeal, the trial court stayed proceedings. 

This court’s jurisdiction over an appeal from the Court 

of Federal Claims generally is limited to an appeal “from a 

final decision.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). A “final” decision 

“ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the 

court to do but execute the judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand 

v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978) (quoting Catlin v. 

United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). The October 17, 

2023 order is not a final decision because it did not resolve 

the issues of backpay and promotion. Nor do the general 

exceptions to the final judgment rule apply here. In particular, the trial court did not certify the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) or enter a Rule 

54(b) certification, which permits the court to enter final 

judgment as to fewer than all claims. RCFC 54(b).*

 

* To the extent Mr. Vazquez Torres’s pending motion 

can be understood as a request to voluntarily dismiss his 

requests for back pay and a promotion, that request has not 

yet been approved by the trial court. Without such approval, there is no final appealable order in this case. See 

United Access Techs., LLC v. AT&T Corp., Nos. 2021-2002, 

2021-2007, 2022 WL 1124961, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 

2022) (citing Robinson-Reeder v. Am. Council on Educ., 571 

Case: 24-1165 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 02/28/2024
VAZQUEZ TORRES v. US 3

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed

(2) Each party shall bear their own costs.

February 28, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

F.3d 1333, 1339–40 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). We expect the trial

court will promptly act on Mr. Vazquez Torres’s pending 

motion.

Case: 24-1165 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 02/28/2024