Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 11/15/2022

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LLOYD GOODNOW, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2022-1841 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:21-cv-01883-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. ______________________

Decided: November 15, 2022 ______________________

LLOYD GOODNOW, SR., Morriston, FL, pro se.

MICHAEL DUANE AUSTIN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY. ______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and PROST, Circuit Judges. Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 11/15/2022

2 GOODNOW v. US

PER CURIAM. Lloyd Goodnow appeals a decision of the Court of Fed- eral Claims dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. Goodnow’s com- plaint, we affirm. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2021, Mr. Goodnow filed an amended complaint against the United States for breach of contract. S. Appx. 6–13. Mr. Goodnow alleged that a former con- gressman had hired his company to gain information on terrorist training camps. S. Appx. 11. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Goodnow’s amended complaint un- der Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, determining the complaint failed to sufficiently allege any of the essen- tial elements of a contract with the United States. Mr. Goodnow filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Federal Claims denied. Mr. Goodnow appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). DISCUSSION We review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim de novo. Jones v. United States, 846 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In reviewing the dismissal, we must accept all well- pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in Mr. Goodnow’s favor. Id. An express or im- plied-in-fact contract with the United States requires: “(1) mutuality of intent, (2) consideration, (3) an unambiguous offer and acceptance, and (4) ‘actual authority’ on the part of the government’s representative to bind the government in contract.” Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 1325, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting City of Cincinnati v. United States, 153 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The Court of Federal Claims did not err in dismissing Mr. Goodnow’s amended complaint. Mr. Goodnow’s Case: 22-1841 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 11/15/2022

GOODNOW v. US 3

amended complaint, even under a liberal construction, fails to allege the elements of a binding contract with the United States. Mr. Goodnow fails to allege that the former con- gressman had the authority to bind the United States in contract. Further, the amended complaint contains no de- tails as to the essential terms of the purported agreement, including what services Mr. Goodnow would provide or how much the former congressman would pay for any services. See Mod. Sys. Tech. Corp. v. United States, 979 F.2d 200, 202 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In the absence of contractual intent or sufficiently definite terms, no contractual obligations arise.”). As the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. Goodnow’s complaint for failure to state a claim, we affirm. 1 AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.

1 Mr. Goodnow also argues the Court of Federal Claims violated his due process rights because Mr. Good- now did not have access to a document listing the deadline for the government to file its reply motion, causing Mr. Goodnow to file erroneous motions. Appellant’s Informal Br. at 4, 6–7. Due process requires notice and a fair oppor- tunity to be heard. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985). Mr. Goodnow has not shown how filing erroneous motions harmed his ability to adjudicate his claim or any harm he suffered as a result. Thus, Mr. Goodnow has not set forth a cognizable due process claim.