2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-9-2009 

# S t eve n F le ming v

. V et e r ans Admn M ed P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3143

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S t eve n Fle min g v

. V e t e r an s Admn M e d " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 459. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/459BL D- 3 2 7 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3143

___________ STEVEN PA UL FLEM I NG , ATP A ppel l ant v . UN I TE D STAT ES VET ERA NS ADM I

NI STR AT I ONME DI CA LCEN TE RS

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 05696) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J . C ur t i s J oyner

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

Sept ember24, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , FI SH E R A N D C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober9, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM S teve n P au l Flem ing , p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai nt . Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.L ocal C i vi l R ul e 7. 1( c) pr ovi des , i n r el evantpar t : “anypar t yoppos i ng t he mot i on 1 s hal l s erve a br i ef i n oppos i t i on, t ogetherw i t h s uch ans w erorot herr es pons e w hi ch may b e a p p ro p ri a te , w ith in f o u rt e e n (1 4 ) d a y s a f

te r s e rv ic e o f

th e m o tio n a n d s u p p o rt in g b ri e f. In th e a b se n c e o f

tim e lyre sp o n se , the m o tio n m a yb e g ra n ted a s u n c o n tes ted e x c e p t th a t a s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, t o w hi ch ther e has been no t i m el yr es pons e, w i l l be governed b yF e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ).” 2 F lem ing fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a on D ecem ber 8, 20 08 i n w hich he all eged t hat the V et erans’ A d m in is tr a tio n (“ V A ” ) m is d ia g n o s e d h im w ith p a ra n o id s c h iz o p h re n ia . H e a lle g e d th a t, as a r es ul tof thi s di agnos i s , hi s car eeras an ai r l i ne pi l otw as rui ned. H e s oughtdamages forper s onal i nj ur yand l os tw ages . O n M ay28, 2009, t he V A m oved t o di s m i s s . A tno tim e d id F lem in g f

ile a re sp o n se o r a n yd o c u m e n t th a t co u ld b e c o n stru e d a s a re sp o n se in the D istri ct C o u rt . A cc o rdin g ly , o n Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e V A ’s m o ti o n to d ism iss as u n o p p o sed p u rsua n t t o L o ca l C ivil R u le 7.1(c ). 1 W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e agr ee that t he D i s t r i ctC our tact ed w i t hi n i t s author i t yt o di s m i s s t he compl ai ntas unoppos ed pur s uantt o t he Local C i vi l R ul es . A ddi t i onal l y , w e not e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r F lem in g ’s a p p e a l. T h ro u g h th is a c tio n , F lem in g se e k s to chal l enge the V A ’ s di agnos i s . T he V et er ans J udi ci al R evi ew A cts et s outa l i m i t ed p ro c e d u re f

o r j u d ic ia l r e v ie w o f

d e c is io n s m a d e b yth e D e p a rt m e n t o f V e te ra n s ’ A f

f a ir s . See 38 U . S. C . § 511( a) . Fi r s t , t he vet er an musts eek r evi ew w i t hi n t he age ncybyfi l i ng a n o tic e o f d is a g re e m e n t w ith th e B o a rd o f V e te ra n s A p p e a ls . S e e 3 8 U .S .C . § 7 1 0 5 (a ).3

A n appea l fr om t he dec i s i on of the B oar d can onl ybe t aken t o t he C our tof A ppeal s for V et er ans C l ai m s , w hi ch has excl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on overappea l s fr om deci s i ons of the B oar d of V et er ans ’ A ppeal s . See 38 U . S. C . § 7252( a) . T hus , t o t he ext entFl emi ng s oughtr evi ew of hi s di agnos i s byt he V A , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d nothave e xer ci s ed s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overhi s cl ai m . See Zuspann v. B r ow n, 60 F. 3d 1156, 1159 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); S u g rue v . D erw insk i, 2 6 F . 3 d 8 , 1 1 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). B ec au se th is ap p ea l prese n ts no “su b stan ti al qu esti o n , ” w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . S e e 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 & I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .