N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
JEFFREY NATHAN SCHIR RIPA, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 5070

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:14

- cv

- 01031

- SGB, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________

Decided: September 9, 2015

______________________

J EFFREY N ATHAN S CHIRRIPA , Kinnelon, NJ, pro se.

E RIN M URDOCK -P ARK , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , R O BERT E. K IRSCHMAN , J R ., D EBORAH A. B YNUM

.

______________________

Before N EWMAN , C HEN , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.SCHIRRIPA v. US 2

P ER C URIAM

. Jeffrey Nathan Schirripa filed claims at the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) seeking money for an “antiterrorism technology” that he believes combats an unspecified threat to the United States. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject

- matter jur isdiction, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted . Because the court did not err , we affirm.

I.
This is the second time Mr. Schirripa has appealed a Claims Court decision to this court. The prior case i nvolved claims for compensation concerning what appears to be the same alleged antiterrorism technology. See Schirripa v. United States , 570 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In that appeal

, this court affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the claims for lack of subject

ma tter jurisdiction. Id . at 939. In the present appeal, Mr. Schirripa alleges claims under the “bounty” provision of Section 4 of the Fou rteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the “seizure” clause of 50 U.S.C. § 212, and 18 U.S.C. § 3 071. The claims are based on his allegations that there is an “unconventional” and “significant” threat to the United States, which obligates the government to

procur e, seize , and compensate him for t he antiterrorism technol ogy.
II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) to review the Claims Court’s final decision. We review de

novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Todd Const., L.P. v. United States

, 656 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2011).SCHIRRIPA v. US 3

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim under the Claims Court’s Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must allege facts ‘plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ a showing of entitlement to relief.” Acceptance Ins. Cos., Inc. v. United States , 583 F.3d 849, 853 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)). The facts as alleged “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assum ption that all the allegations in the complaint are t rue (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

We find that the Claims Court properly held that the complaint fail s to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In particular, we agree that the allegations are specul ative and lack a specific prayer for relief. See Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (proper to dismiss complaint as factually frivolous if facts alleged are “clearly baseless, . . . a category encompassing alleg ations that are fanciful, . . . , fantastic, . . . and delusional”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

III.
We have considered Mr. Schirripa’s remaining arg uments and conclude that they are without merit. 1 Because Mr. Schirripa’s claims were properly dismissed for failure t o state a claim, the decision of the Claims Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

1 We have considered Mr. Schirripa’s various m otions, including those to “expedite arbitration,” for “d efault judgment,” and for “summary judgment.” We find the motions without merit and therefore deny them.