NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MAURICE GRAYTON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7105

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-1891, Judge Robert N. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: January 9, 2015 

______________________ 

MAURICE GRAYTON, Chula Vista, California, pro se. 

ALEXANDER O. CANIZARES, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondentappellee. With him on the brief were JOYCE R. BRANDA, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, and CLAUDIA BURKE, Assistant 

Director. 

______________________ 
2 GRAYTON v. MCDONALD

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Maurice Grayton appeals from the judgment of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(Veterans Court) affirming the determination of the 

Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) that it was not reasonably feasible for Mr. Grayton to achieve a vocational 

goal for purposes of entitlement to vocational rehabilitation and training under Chapter 31 of Title 38 of the

United States Code. Grayton v. Gibson, No. 13-1891, 

2014 WL 2719673 (Vet. App. June 17, 2014) (Veterans 

Court Decision). We affirm in part and dismiss in part. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Grayton served on active duty in the United 

States Marine Corps from 1982 until 1993. In June 2006, 

Mr. Grayton filed an application with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) for vocational rehabilitation benefits pursuant to Chapter 31 of Title 38 of the United 

States Code. At that time, Mr. Grayton had a serviceconnected disability rating of 80 percent, a total disability 

rating based on individual unemployability, and had not 

been employed since 2002. He was also attending school 

to achieve his bachelor’s degree. 

That month, Mr. Grayton attended a VA vocational 

rehabilitation orientation and underwent various counseling sessions and assessments. In January 2007, the VA

Regional Office determined that Mr. Grayton had a 

serious employment handicap. Mr. Grayton agreed to 

participate in an Individualized Extended Evaluation 

Plan which provided books and equipment for use in 

completing school assignments. 

Later that year, Mr. Grayton reported difficulty in obtaining employment. He indicated that he felt that he 

needed an advanced degree to obtain employment. After 

additional assessments and other guidance sessions, the 
GRAYTON v. MCDONALD 3

VA notified Mr. Grayton that it determined that it was 

not feasible for him to return to work, that he had not 

overcome his unemployability, and that a vocational goal 

was not feasible. The VA then ceased his vocational 

rehabilitation services. 

The Board denied Mr. Grayton’s appeal seeking to establish that achievement of a vocational goal was reasonably feasible. Mr. Grayton timely appealed that decision 

to the Veterans Court. The Veterans Court construed Mr. 

Grayton’s appeal brief as arguing that the Board misapplied the regulations pertaining to vocational rehabilitation benefits and failed to provide an adequate statement 

of reasons or bases for its decision. Veterans Court Decision at *1. The Veterans Court affirmed, additionally 

finding that, to the extent Mr. Grayton alleged a violation 

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court lacked jurisdiction over such 

an action. Id. at *3. Mr. Grayton appeals. 

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans 

Court is limited by statute. We have jurisdiction to 

review a decision of the Veterans Court “with respect to 

the validity of a decision of the Court on a rule of law or of 

any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof 

. . . that was relied on by the [Veterans Court] in making 

the decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (2012). Except where 

an appeal raises a constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to review a “challenge to a factual determination” or 

a “challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts 

of a particular case.” Id. § 7292(d)(2).

We find that the Veterans Court properly dismissed 

Mr. Grayton’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Veterans Court’s jurisdiction to hear appeals is governed by 38 

U.S.C. § 7252, which strictly limits the Veterans Court’s 

jurisdiction to the review of decisions by the Board. 

Jurisdiction over § 1983 claims lies with district courts, 

not the Veterans Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1343; Clemmons 
4 GRAYTON v. MCDONALD

v. United States, 283 F. App’x 786, 787 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

The Veterans Court therefore correctly concluded that an 

action under § 1983 is a civil action over which it lacks 

jurisdiction. 

We lack jurisdiction to decide the remaining issues 

raised by Mr. Grayton on appeal. Mr. Grayton challenges 

the Veterans Court decision on the basis of his claims 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act for intentional infliction of emotional distress and his claims under the 6th 

and 14th Amendments. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 1. 

However, Mr. Grayton did not raise these claims in his 

appeal to the Veterans Court and the Veterans Court did 

not address them. We lack jurisdiction to consider claims 

neither addressed by the Veterans Court nor raised by a 

party to the Veterans Court. Belcher v. West, 214 F.3d 

1335, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Smith v. West, 214 F.3d 

1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). 

We likewise lack jurisdiction over Mr. Grayton’s final 

claims concerning breach of the Individual Extended 

Evaluation Plan or contract. Although Mr. Grayton used 

the terms “agreement” and “contract” in his appeal to the 

Veterans Court, J.A. 60, the Veterans Court construed his 

claims as alleging that the Board erred by misapplying 

the regulations to his case or by failing to provide an 

adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. 

We lack jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court decision 

under either interpretation. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); Cook 

v. Principi, 353 F.3d 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (concluding 

that the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review the 

Veterans Court’s determination that the Board provided 

adequate reasons or bases for its decision). 

CONCLUSION

Because the Veterans Court properly dismissed Mr. 

Grayton’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and Mr. Grayton raises 

no other argument or issue over which we have jurisdiction, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. 
GRAYTON v. MCDONALD 5

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

COSTS

No costs.