Rogue Riverkeeper v. Bean ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • NOTE: This order is nonprecedential
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ROGUE RIVERKEEPER, A PROJECT OF THE
    KLAMATH SISK_IYOU WILDLANDS C'ENTER,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    V.
    DONALD BEAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    2012-1107
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    District of Oregon in Case N0. 11-CV-3013, Magistrate
    Judge Mark D. Clarke.
    ON MOTION
    Bef0re LOURIE, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Juclges.
    PER CURIAM.
    0 R D E R
    Rogue Riverkeeper moves to dismiss this appeal for
    lack of jurisdiction Donald Bean opposes. Rogue
    Riverkeeper supplements its motion, and Bean opposes
    R(§GUE RIVERKEEPER V. BEAN 2
    the supplementation. Bean further moves to reform the
    caption
    Rogue Riverkeeper argues that this court lacks juris-
    diction over this appeal because the order challenged is
    not final or appealable Bean appeals the district c0urt’s
    order denying his request to transfer the case to the
    United States Court of Federal Claims. Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (d)(4)(A), this court has jurisdiction of an appeal
    from an interlocutory order of a district court“granting or
    denying, in whole or in part, a motion to transfer an
    action to the United States Court of Federal Claims."
    ` Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, inter
    alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as
    a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the
    outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshuo u. United States, 
    17 F.3d 378
    , 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find that summary
    affirmance is appropriate here. Bean appeals the district
    court’s denial of transfer to the Court of Federal Claims,
    but the dispute below presents no issue over which the
    Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction.
    The complaint below includes citizens’ enforcement
    claims under the Clean Water Act and Resource Conser-
    vati0n and Recovery Act. These claims do not fall within
    the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The
    district court did not err in denying transfer to the Court
    of Federal Claims.
    l Accordingly,
    I'r Is ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The district court’s denial of transfer to the Court
    of Federal Claims is summarily afiirmed.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
    (3) All pending motions are moot.
    JUL 20 2012
    Date
    cc: Donald Bean
    Ralph O. Bloemers, Esq.
    324
    ROGUE RIVERKEEPER V. BEAN
    Fon THE CoURT
    /s/ J an Horbaly
    J an Horb aly
    clerk
    D
    u_s,‘_ti*,|ollhl`:ll|l-’E ma
    APFEA\.S
    E FEDERAL C|RCUIT
    JUL 20 2012
    JAN HOHBALY
    CLER|{
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-1107

Filed Date: 7/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021