NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID A. ADEYI,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1400

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-884, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________ 

Decided: February 16, 2022

______________________ 

DAVID ADEYEMI ADEYI, Bronx, NY, pro se.

 KELLY A. KRYSTYNIAK, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR.; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of 

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC.

 ______________________ 

Case: 21-1400 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 02/16/2022
2 ADEYI v. MCDONOUGH

Before DYK, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

BACKGROUND

David A. Adeyi appeals from the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans 

Court). Adeyi v. Wilkie, No. 19-0884, 2020 WL 1237739 

(Vet. App. Mar. 16, 2020) (Veterans Court Decision). The 

Veterans Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), which denied service connection for 

right and left knee disorders. Id. at *1.

Mr. Adeyi served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 

February 2002 to July 2002 and from September 2004 to 

September 2005, with additional Reserve service. Id. In 

2003, he served as an exchange soldier in Norway. Id. In 

an April 2003 medical review, Mr. Adeyi reported a right 

knee injury, incurred during an in-service skiing accident. 

Id.; Suppl. App. (S.A.) 21.1 But in subsequent medical reviews over the next one-and-a-half years, he reported no 

medical problems, including knee problems. Veterans 

Court Decision, 2020 WL 1237739, at *1. His separation 

examination was normal. Id.

Nearly a decade after he left service, Mr. Adeyi sought 

disability compensation for his right and left knees, alleging that they were injured in the skiing incident. Id. He 

was examined twice by the VA. Id. In May 2012, the examiner diagnosed Mr. Adeyi with a right knee sprain and 

reviewed his medical history. He opined that, based on his 

present condition and the historical medical records, the 

knee sprain was “less likely than not” related to service. 

1 References to the Supplemental Appendix refer to 

the appendix filed with the government’s informal brief, 

ECF No. 12.

Case: 21-1400 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 02/16/2022
ADEYI v. MCDONOUGH 3

Id. In December 2015, another examiner observed that Mr. 

Adeyi had injured his right knee in 2003 but did not have 

a current right knee condition. Id. The examiner also 

found that Mr. Adeyi’s left-knee arthralgia was not related 

to service. Id. The Board denied service connection for 

both knees. Id.

Mr. Adeyi appealed the decision to the Veterans Court. 

Id. He alleged the Board made erroneous credibility determinations, relied on deficient VA medical opinions, and 

provided an inadequate rationale for its findings. Id. The 

Veterans Court rejected these arguments in its decision 

dated March 16, 2020. Id. at *1–3. The Veterans Court 

denied Mr. Adeyi’s motion for reconsideration and entered 

final judgment on April 15, 2020. S.A. 4. Mr. Adeyi appeals the Veterans Court’s decision.

DISCUSSION

We dismiss the appeal as untimely filed and, therefore,

for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Adeyi’s notice of appeal was 

received on October 17, 2020, more than six months (185 

days) after the Veterans Court entered judgment on April 

15, 2020. ECF No. 1. To be timely, a notice of appeal must 

be received by the Veterans Court within 60 days of the 

entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); see also 28 

U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). We have previously explained that the Supreme Court “has long held 

that the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is 

‘mandatory and jurisdictional,’” and “it has clearly but indirectly indicated that the same conclusion applies to appeals under section 7292(a) from the Veterans Court to this 

court.” Wagner v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 

2013) (quoting Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007) 

and Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011)). 

Because Mr. Adeyi failed to file his notice of appeal by June 

14, 2020, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. 

That is so even though, on July 30, 2020, Mr. Adeyi 

filed a motion with the Veterans Court to extend the time 

Case: 21-1400 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 02/16/2022
4 ADEYI v. MCDONOUGH

to file a notice of appeal. S.A. 31. On August 27, 2020, the 

Veterans Court denied the motion because, by statute, 

such a motion must be filed “not later than 30 days after 

the expiration of the time otherwise set for bringing appeal.” S.A. 2 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c)). The Veterans 

Court also noted that, even if Mr. Adeyi’s motion for extension was considered a motion to reopen the time for appeal, 

relief could not be granted on that ground because Mr. 

Adeyi had not asserted that he did not timely receive notice 

of the April 15, 2020 judgment. Id. 

The Veterans Court’s order denying the motion noted 

that, under Federal Circuit precedent, the denial of the motion was itself a final order that may be appealed. S.A. 3 

(citing Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., 782 F.3d 1311, 

1314 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). However, Mr. Adeyi did not appeal 

the denial of his motion; his appeal instead is limited to 

only the decision on the merits. See ECF No. 1-2, at 1 (identifying that he was appealing the decision dated March 16, 

2020); see generally Appellant’s Informal Br. In his reply 

brief, Mr. Adeyi asserts that “he did not receive judgment 

order notices under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

77(d), because he was forced to leave the city/state of New 

York during the Covid-19 pandemic.” Appellant’s Informal 

Reply Br. 1. However, this assertion is too-late raised to be 

deemed an appeal of the Veterans Court’s denial to reopen 

the time for appeal, and it was never presented to the Veterans Court in Mr. Adeyi’s original motion to extend the 

time. Our court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. 

Adeyi’s appeal on the merits, given that we have “no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.” Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214. 

Therefore, the untimely-filed appeal of the Veterans 

Court’s decision on the merits is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The parties shall bear their own costs. 

DISMISSED

Case: 21-1400 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 02/16/2022