NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7101

ROBERT W. SCROGGINS, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
Robert W. Scroggins , of Shreveport, Louisiana, pro se. William P. Rayel , Trial Attorney, Commercial Li tigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, fo r respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Kirk T. Manhardt , Assistant Director. Of couns el on the brief were Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Amanda R. Blackmon , Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Vete rans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge Ronald M. HoldawayNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7101

ROBERT W. SCROGGINS, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 08- 2255, Judge Ronald M. Holdaway.

____________________________ DECIDED: January 6, 2010

____________________________ Before LOURIE, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. DECISION Robert Scroggins appeals from the decis ion of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) dismissing his appeal based on a lack of final decision from t he Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“t he Board”). Scroggins v. Shinseki , No. 08-2255, 2009 U.S. App. Vet. Cla ims Lexis 381 (U.S. App. Vet. Cl. Mar. 18, 2009). Because Scroggins’ appeal does not raise any issue within our jurisdiction, we dismiss

.BACKGROUND On July 3, 2008, Scroggins filed a notice of appeal at the Veterans Court seeking review of Board decisions dated June 27, 2008 and June 30, 2008. The Veterans Court had no record of a final Board decision and i ssued an order to show cause, requiring Scroggins to explain why the court should not dismiss his appeal. In response, Scroggins stated that he wa s appealing the August 1988 effective date of a total disability rating due to individual unemployabilit y. His statements indicated that his claim had been denied by the regional office of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (“the VA”), but that he had not obtained a decision from the Board. Typica lly, decisions from the VA regional office must be appealed to t he Board within the time frame prescribed by regulation. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. Following a fi nal decision from the Board, a veteran may appeal to the Veterans Court. Because the Board had not issued a final decision in this case, the Veterans Court dismissed Scroggins’ appeal. Scroggins timely appealed to this cour t. Our jurisdiction in appeals from the Veterans Court rests on 38 U.S.C. § 7292. DISCUSSION The scope of our review of a Veterans Court decision is limited by statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Under § 7292(a), we may re view a decision by the Veterans Court with respect to the validity of “any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” Absent a constitutional issue, we may not review challenges to factual determinations or c hallenges to the application of a law or regulation to facts. Id. § 7292(d)(2).

2009-7101 22009-7101 3 Scroggins essentially argues that the VA fa iled to explain its procedures fully or provide him with enough guidance or assistance. However, in addition to the fact that, as the Veterans court held, he has no final decision from the Boar d from which he can appeal to that court, he raises no challenge in th is court to the decis ion of the Veterans Court based on “the validity of a statute or regulation, or the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or a regulation.” Livingston v. Derwinski , 959 F.2d 224, 226 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Thus, we have no aut hority to consider the appeal. Id. We therefore must dismiss Scroggins’ appeal. COSTS No costs.