Coversheet Corrected: April 9, 2007 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-5035

ANDRE JOEL HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

Andre Joel Howard , of Houston, Texas, pro se. Joan Stentiford , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne Davidson , Director, and Steven J. Gillingham , Assistant Director. Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Emily C. Hewitt* Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Sr. District Judge, United States District Court of Maryland, sitting by designation. NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-5035 ANDRE JOEL HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

__________________ _________

DECIDED: April 5, 2007

__________________ _________ Before MAYER, RADER, Circuit Judges , and GARBIS*, Senior District Judge

. PER CURIAM. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed A ndre J. Howard's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Howard v. United States , 74 Fed.Cl. 676 (2006) Finding no reversible error, this court affirms. In reviewing judgments of the Court of Federal Claims, th is court reviews conclusions of law, such as contract or statutory inte rpretation, without deference. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth . v. United States , 254 F.3d 1367, 1372 (F ed. Cir. 2001); Kane v. United States , 43 F.3d 1446, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Th is court reviews findings of facts under the “clearly err oneous” standard. City of El Centro v. United States , 922 F.2d 816, 819 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This court al so reviews without deference whether theCourt of Federal Claim s properly dismissed a complaint fo r failure to state a claim. United Pacific Ins. Co. v. United States , 464 F.3d 1325, (Fed. Cir. 2006). In his complaint to this court and the tr ial court below, Mr. Ho ward proffers vague assertions of violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (2006) and violations of the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In particular, Mr. Howard asserts unspecified la ck of due process from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and improper manipu lations of the judicial syst em by the Unites States Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit in su pport of the DOJ. Th e trial court found no allegations of an actual taki ng of property without just co mpensation. Nor does this court. Further, Mr. Howard’s attempt to name the Fifth Circuit as a defendant is unavailing. The United Stat es is the only proper defendant before the Court of Federal Claims. United St ates v Sherwood , 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941) (holding relief sought against others than the United States must be ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of the court). Regarding Mr. Howard’s allegations under 28 U.S.C. § 1916, this code section allows seamen, without paying fess or costs, to file suits and appeals concerning their wages, salvage, and for enforcement of laws governing their health and safety. 28 U.S.C. § 1916. Section 1916, however, does not entitle a plaintiff monetary relief against the United States. Mr. Howard has not identified any viol ation of any money-mandating source for which the trial court can grant monetary re lief. Accordingly, this court affirms.

2007-5035 2