Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/28/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MARLIN D. LOWERY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SPENCER BYRD, Cheboygan School Superintendent, MARLENE ALEXANDER, Cheboygan Schools Hu- man Resource Director, LEO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, JULIA DALE, UIA Director, UIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TERRY BURNS, UIA In- ternal Controls Division Administrator, UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEES, 1-3, STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2025-1590 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in No. 1:24-cv-11604-LVP- PTM, Judge Linda V. Parker. ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/28/2025

2 LOWERY v. CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Marlin D. Lowery filed this suit against various state and local officials and entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding denial of unemployment benefits. The district court dismissed, and Mr. Lowery filed a motion for reconsideration (which remains pending) and a notice of appeal directed to this court. In response to this court’s April 14, 2025 order to show cause, appellees argue the ap- peal should be dismissed. Mr. Lowery files an opening brief but not a separate response.

In general, we only have authority to review decisions from district courts in cases that arise under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or cases that involve cer- tain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see § 1295(a)(2). This case does not fall within that limited ju- risdiction. Under the circumstances, we conclude transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1631. 1 Accordingly,

1 Appellees argue, in part, that the appeal should be dismissed because of Mr. Lowery’s pending motion for re- consideration. Though that may render the notice of ap- peal not yet effective, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), we deem it more appropriate to transfer than dismiss under the circumstances. Cf. Slep-Tone Ent. Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 717–18 (6th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e stay the appeal pending the district court’s resolu- tion of [the] pending post-judgment motion.” (collecting cases)).

Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 05/28/2025

LOWERY v. CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: This appeal and all case filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT

May 28, 2025 Date