N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

__________________________

VERLENE L. PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________

2010-5139

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case No.10-CV-73, Judge Marian Blank Horn.

__________________________ Decided: November 5, 2010

__________________________
V ERLENE L. P ARKER , of Flint, Michigan, pro se.

L ANE N. M CFADDEN , Attorney, Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United StatesDepartment of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendantappellee. With him on the brief was I GANACIA S. M ORENO , Assistant Attorney General.

__________________________
Before G AJARSA , L INN , and M OORE , Circuit Judges

.PARKER v. US 2

P ER C URIAM

.Verlene L. Parker (“Parker”) appeals from a final decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Parker v. United States , 93 Fed. Cl. 159 (2010). For the reasons discussed below, this court affirms

. B ACKGROUND Parker filed suit against the United States alleging a taking of her property and re questing compensation. In her pleadings, Parker allege d that “[i]n April 2005, [she] vacated her premises for govern ment purposes . . . . due to a dispute by multiple agents, over the contents in her home and the contents on the land.” Further, “the agents set into motion destructive forces that directly removed personal property from the premises, which eventually [led] to the [loss] of the entire property, both real andpersonal.” In response “to an order from governing authority via telecommunications instrumentality for [her] to leave,” she left her property and claims to have suffered a constitutional taking “according to Mich. Statute 213.1, Note 8.” Parker seeks $2, 175,285.10 in compensation.

After a careful review and liberal construction of Parker’s filings, the Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Parker , 93 Fed. Cl. at 162. Specifically, the court found Parker asserted no “factual allegation or substantiating information as to what actions were taken by a federal official that resu lted in the alleged taking of her property.” Id. at 163. Because Parker failed to allege a claim within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, the court dismissed her complaint. Id.PARKER v. US 3

Parker filed a motion for reconsideration, suggesting that her pleadings may have been tampered with in the mail and requesting oral argument. The court denied Parker’s motion, finding that she failed to identify any “federal statute, actual federa l agency or federal employee as responsible” for the alleged taking of her property and that oral argument was unnecessary in light of her having filed “approximately 200 pages” in presenting her case. See Parker v. United States , 93 Fed. Cl. 653, 657 (2010). Parker filed her notice of appeal that same day and this court has jurisdiction over her appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

D ISCUSSIONWhether the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Parker’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted are both questions of law this court reviews de novo

. Boyle v. United States , 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In reviewing the dism issal, we must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in Parker’s favor. Id. The Tucker Act vests the Court of Federal Claims with exclusivejurisdiction over takings claims against the federal government that seek more than $10,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. On appeal, Parker argues that the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is inconsistent with the law and facts and that the court improperly denied her request fororal argument. This court disagrees. The Court of Federal Claims not only considered the constitutional basisfor Parker’s allegations and whether the complaint alleged a potential claim under th e Tucker Act, but also her invocation of Michigan state law. Parker v. United States

, 93 Fed. Cl. 159, 162-63. While Parker did not identify any specific facts the court neglected to consider, herPARKER v. US 4

pleadings, even under a liberal construction, fail to specify any action by a federal official or agency that resulted in the taking of her property and that may have served as a basis for her suit against the United States. Finally, the court was well within its discretion to deny oral argument in light of Parker’s extensive filings. See Amado v. Microsoft Corp. , 517 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The court properly dismissed Parker’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the above reasons, the decision of the Court of Federal Claims is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

C OSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.