Case: 24-1187 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 11/14/2024

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LIVIA M. SCOTTO, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2024-1187 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23-4076, Judge Michael P. Allen. ______________________

Decided: November 14, 2024 ______________________

LIVIA M. SCOTTO, Valrico, FL, pro se.

JOSEPH ALAN PIXLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, LOREN MISHA PREHEIM. ______________________ Case: 24-1187 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 11/14/2024

2 SCOTTO v. MCDONOUGH

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Pro se appellant Livia M. Scotto appeals a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in which the Veterans Court dismissed Ms. Scotto’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we dismiss the present appeal. BACKGROUND In June 2023, Ms. Scotto filed an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Vet- erans Court”). Scotto v. McDonough, No. 23-4076, 2023 WL 6057374, at *1 (Vet. App. Sept. 18, 2023) (“Decision”). In her Notice of Appeal, Ms. Scotto listed February 19, 2019, as the date of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) de- cision that she sought to appeal. Id. In another section of the Notice of Appeal, Ms. Scotto listed the date of the Board decision as January 17, 2023, along with other handwrit- ten notes stating “UNKNOWN” and “NO DECISION WAS SENT.” Id. The Notice of Appeal did not provide any ad- ditional information on any Board decision Ms. Scotto sought to appeal. Id. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“Secretary”) moved to dismiss the underlying appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the Board did not issue a decision relating to Ms. Scotto on either of the dates Ms. Scotto listed. Id. Be- fore deciding the Secretary’s motion to dismiss, the Veter- ans Court provided Ms. Scotto with multiple opportunities to identify a Board decision she sought to challenge. Appx1. 1 Ms. Scotto failed to do so. Decision, at *1.

1 “Appx” refers to the appendix accompanying the Secretary’s responding brief. Case: 24-1187 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 11/14/2024

SCOTTO v. MCDONOUGH 3

On September 18, 2023, the Veterans Court dismissed Ms. Scotto’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Veterans Court explained that if a claimant seeks review before the Veterans Court of a Board decision, there must be a final Board decision at issue. Id. (citing 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7266(a)). The Veterans Court explained that the Board did not issue any decision concerning Ms. Scotto on the dates that Ms. Scotto identified, and that Ms. Scotto failed to identify any other purported decision she wished to appeal. Id. After the September 2023 decision, Ms. Scotto filed ad- ditional documents with the Veterans Court, which it in- terpreted as a motion to reconsider the dismissal and a motion for recusal. Appx1. In October 2023, the Veterans Court denied the motions. Appx2. The Veterans Court noted that Ms. Scotto (1) once again failed to identify a Board decision she sought to challenge and (2) failed to raise any bases for challenging the assigned Veterans Court judge’s impartiality or fair judgment that would re- quire recusal of the judge. Appx2. The Veterans Court en- tered judgment against Ms. Scotto. Appx2. Ms. Scotto appeals. DISCUSSION This court’s jurisdiction to review a decision of the Vet- erans Court is limited. We review the validity of a Veter- ans Court decision “on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof” that the Vet- erans Court relied on in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Additionally, this court may not, unless a con- stitutional challenge is presented, “review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). On appeal, Ms. Scotto raises no legal argument, nor does she present a constitutional argument, concerning the Veterans Court’s September 2023 decision. Ms. Scotto Case: 24-1187 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 11/14/2024

4 SCOTTO v. MCDONOUGH

thus fails to raise a challenge to the Veterans Court’s Sep- tember 2023 decision that would fall within the narrow confines of our appellate jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7292(a), (d)(2). First, Ms. Scotto lists various statutes in her filings before this court, such as laws governing war damages and congressional reporting, but does not make a discernible argument as to why those statutes are relevant to the Veterans Court’s September 2023 decision. See Ap- pellant’s Informal Br. 2 (citing 50 U.S.C. § 515). 2 We fail to see how those statutes, which the Veterans Court never relied on, let alone discussed, in its September 2023 deci- sion, are relevant. Second, Ms. Scotto provides extraneous information in her filings but does not explain how that in- formation relates to the Veterans Court’s September 2023 decision. See, e.g., Appellant’s Formal Reply Br. 7 (discuss- ing “criminal collusion,” “interference with employment contracts,” and “larsceny” [sic]). Even with a lenient read- ing of her filings, we cannot discern any connection be- tween these extraneous statements and the Veterans Court’s September 2023 decision. We thus have no juris- diction over Ms. Scotto’s appeal. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7292(a), (d)(2). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Scotto’s appeal is dis- missed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.

2 To the extent Ms. Scotto challenges on appeal the Veterans Court’s October 2023 decision, Ms. Scotto fails to raise any discernable challenge to that decision that falls within our appellate jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7292(a), (d)(2).