Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7154

HENRY J. PALMER, Claimant-Appellant,

v.
R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

Henry J. Palmer , of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pro se. A. Bondurant Eley , Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, for re spondent-appellee. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr. , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Liza M. Davis

.

Appealed from: United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-7154 HENRY J. PALMER, Claimant-Appellant,

v. R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

______ ____________________ DECIDED: June 7, 2007

______ ____________________ Before BRYSON, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Henry J. Palmer (“Palmer”) appeals from a final judgment of t he United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. Palmer v. Nicholson , No. 06-3424 (Vet. App. Jan. 26, 2007) (“ Mandamus Order ”). Because the Veterans Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Palmer had failed to demonstr ate a “clear and indisputable right” to a writ of mandamus, see Lamb v. Principi , 284 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we affirm

. Palmer’s primary contenti on on appeal is that in its Mandamus Order, the Veterans Court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to address his allegations that his life will be put in danger un less his appeal before the Board of Veterans Appeals(“Board”) is taken out of turn and given spec ial processing. To the contrary, however, the Veterans Court squarely addressed Pa lmer’s concerns and his request that his appeal be moved forward. The Veterans Court observed that Palmer had not submitted any evidence that “the Secretary’s refusa l to advance his appeal on the docket was arbitrary and capricious.” Mandamus Order , slip op. at 2. We have reviewed the record and likewise see no evidence that Palmer’s appeal befo re the Board will not be appropriately and expeditiously adjudicated in the ordinary course of proceedings. We therefore agree with the Veterans Court that Palmer has not met his burden of showing a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus. To the extent that Palmer alleges that the Department of Veter ans Affairs (“VA”) has committ ed or intends to commit any criminal or civil violations against him, the Veterans Court also correctly observed that its jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions of the Board. See id. , slip op. at 3. Thus, any such allegations must be raised in some other forum or, to the extent appropriate, in the context of hi s appeal before the Board itself. With respect to Palmer’s assertion that the VA stole or hid his medical records, we observe that at Palmer’s request the VA promptly provided him with his entire VA claims file. Palmer has not put forward any evidence that he failed to receive this file, that it was incomplete, or that it differs from the file that wa s forwarded from the VA regional office to the Board. To the ex tent that Palmer wishes to challenge the authenticity or validity of t he evidence before the Board, we agree with the Veterans Court that these claims are appropriately adj udicated in an appeal fr om the Board’s final decision rather than in a petit ion for extraordinary relief. See id.

2007-7154 2In short, Palmer has not shown that t here is anything “extraordinary about the present case,” see Lamb , 284 F.3d at 1382, that warrant s the issuance of a writ of mandamus, much less that the Veterans Cour t abused its discretion in denying him one. Accordingly, we affirm its decision. COSTS No costs.

2007-7154 3