NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ISAAC A. POTTER, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERTA S. BREN AND OBLON SPIVAK,

Defendants-Appellees, 

AND

MICHELLE K. LEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND LINDA 

M. KING,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2014-1379

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:13-cv-01417-CMHIDD, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ISAAC A. POTTER, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Case: 14-1379 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 07/24/2014
2 POTTER v. BREN

ROBERTA S. BREN AND OBLON SPIVAK,

Defendants-Appellees, 

AND

MICHELLE K. LEE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND LINDA 

M. KING,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2014-1505

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:13-cv-01417-CMHIDD, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton.

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Upon docketing of Mr. Potter’s recent notice of appeal, 

Potter v. Bren, 2014-1505, the court reconsiders its previous order of May 6, 2014 transferring an appeal in the 

same case, Potter v. Bren, 2014-1379, to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. 

In this case, the district court dismissed without prejudice and directed Mr. Potter to amend his complaint. 

Mr. Potter then filed a notice of appeal seeking review at 

this court, and that appeal was docketed as 2014-1379. 

On May 6, 2014, this court issued an order transferring 

the case to the Fourth Circuit, where Mr. Potter had filed 

a previous interlocutory appeal. Before our mandate 

issued, Mr. Potter filed a new “notice of appeal” at the 

district court, which was transmitted to this court. While 

this court docketed that notice as a new appeal, 2014-

Case: 14-1379 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 07/24/2014
 POTTER v. BREN 3

1505, it appears that Mr. Potter is seeking reconsideration of this court’s previous determination to transfer. 

Upon further review, this court concludes that it 

would not be in the interest of justice to transfer the 2014-

1379 appeal because the Fourth Circuit would not have 

jurisdiction over the order dismissing the complaint 

without prejudice. See Groves v. City of Darlington, 346 

Fed. Appx. 965, 966 (4th Cir. 2009) (“An order granting 

leave to amend is interlocutory as it leaves the case open 

for either amendment of the complaint or entry of final 

judgment.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (authorizing transfer only if it is in the interest of justice to do so). 

Mr. Potter mentions his “Motion to Transfer Action 

No. 1:13-CV-0417-CMH-IDD to the Court of Federal

Claims,” which has not been acted on by the district court. 

Generally, this court has jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders from district courts concerning a motion to 

transfer to the Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(d)(4)(A). However, based on Mr. Potter’s citations 

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292 and 1295 and reference to the Fourth 

Circuit’s previous dismissal order, it is unclear that Mr. 

Potter’s motion was actually seeking transfer to the Court 

of Federal Claims. 

To the extent that the district court’s dismissal order 

constructively denied his transfer motion and that determination properly falls within this court’s jurisdiction, 

there is no showing that the Court of Federal Claims 

would have had jurisdiction over Mr. Potter’s complaint. 

Thus, to the extent that Mr. Potter’s appeals raise this

issue, we affirm. Cf. Parker v. U.S., Nos. 93-1055, -1058, -

1123, 1993 WL 262640, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 1993) 

(summarily affirming under similar circumstances). 

Accordingly,

Case: 14-1379 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 07/24/2014
4 POTTER v. BREN

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The May 6, 2014 order transferring Appeal No. 

2014-1379 is vacated.

(2) The appeals are dismissed-in-part and affirmedin-part.

(3) Any other pending motions are denied as moot.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s30

Case: 14-1379 Document: 19 Page: 4 Filed: 07/24/2014