Case: 25-1522 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CAUSTIN LEE MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2025-1522 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-00141-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling. ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER Caustin Lee McLaughlin appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims’s order transferring his case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. We directed the parties to address this court’s jurisdiction, and in response the United States urges dismissal. Mr. McLaughlin has not filed a response.

This court ordinarily only has jurisdiction to review a “final decision” of the Court of Federal Claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3), which is one that “ends the litigation on the Case: 25-1522 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2025

2 MCLAUGHLIN v. US

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945). The transfer order did not end the litigation, which instead proceeds in the District of Maryland. See Subsalve USA Corp. v. Watson Mfg., Inc., 462 F.3d 41, 47 (1st Cir. 2006) (“[E]very court of appeals to have confronted [the is- sue] has concluded that section 1631 transfer orders are not immediately appealable.” (collecting cases)).

Mr. McLaughlin cites no source of authority that would authorize such interlocutory review. The Court of Federal Claims has not certified the interlocutory order for imme- diate appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2). And while 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(A) provides this court with jurisdiction to re- view a district court order regarding transfer to the Court of Federal Claims, that statute does not authorize our re- view of a Court of Federal Claims order transferring to dis- trict court. Emiabata v. United States, No. 2021-1703, 2022 WL 1055435, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).

Accordingly IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

July 16, 2025 Date