Anthony M. Augusta v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANTHONY M. AUGUSTA,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1040
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01145-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
Decided: April 15, 2026
______________________
ANTHONY M. AUGUSTA, Ocala, FL, pro se.
J AMES WILLIAM P OIRIER, I, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE,
F RANKLIN E. WHITE, J R.
______________________
Before P ROST , CLEVENGER , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 26-1040 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

AUGUSTA v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Anthony M. Augusta appeals a decision by the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing his
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. App’x 25–26.1 For the
following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Augusta filed a complaint in the Claims Court
seeking redress for the denial of his service-connected dis-
ability benefits claim by the Department of Veterans Af-
fairs (“VA”) and for alleged improprieties during the
processing of his applications for VA benefits. App’x 25.
Mr. Augusta has filed numerous suits with the Claims
Court, at least two of which concern the same general facts
underlying his claims for relief sought in this case. See,
e.g., Augusta v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-562, 2018 WL
2227779, at *1 (Fed. Cl. May 16, 2018) (“Augusta I”); Au-
gusta v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-883, 2018 WL 6721748,
at *1 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 20, 2018) (“Augusta II”).
In this case, the government filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing that the Claims Court lacks subject-matter juris-
diction. The Claims Court granted that motion, conclud-
ing: (1) it lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Augusta’s allegations;
and (2) Mr. Augusta’s allegations are precluded by res ju-
dicata principles. App’x 25–26.
Mr. Augusta timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
1 “App’x” refers to the appendix included with
Mr. Augusta’s informal opening brief at ECF No. 8. When
citing specific pages, we cite the page numbers supplied by
the electronic filing system in the header of the document.
Case: 26-1040 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

AUGUSTA v. US 3
D ISCUSSION
We review the determination of the Claims Court’s ju-
risdiction de novo and any factual findings relating to ju-
risdiction for clear error. Biafora v. United States, 773 F.3d
1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Mr. Augusta’s main argument on appeal appears to be
that the Claims Court erred in dismissing his constitu-
tional due process claims concerning the alleged improper
processing of his VA claim. That argument fails.
It is well established that the Claims Court lacks juris-
diction over standalone due process claims because they do
not constitute a money-mandating source of law. See, e.g.,
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (due process claims do not form “a sufficient basis for
jurisdiction because they do not mandate payment of
money by the government”). Here, because Mr. Augusta
argues only due-process claims, he has failed to identify a
money-mandating source of law to confer the Claims Court
with jurisdiction. To the extent he argues that the Tucker
Act provides jurisdiction based on his underlying VA claim,
Congress’s statutory scheme for adjudicating VA benefits
claims displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction. See United States
v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 12–13 (2012).2
Furthermore, Mr. Augusta fails to demonstrate that
res judicata principles are inapplicable. The Claims Court
found that Mr. Augusta’s complaint “[e]cho[ed]” the claims
made in two of his prior cases, and that res judicata
2 Mr. Augusta’s reliance on Cushman v. Shinseki,
576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009), is misplaced. Informal Re-
ply Br. 3. Cushman’s acknowledgement that a veteran
may have due-process rights concerning disability benefits
adjudicated in the VA system does not create Tucker Act
jurisdiction for the Claims Court. Cushman was an appeal
from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Case: 26-1040 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

AUGUSTA v. US 4
principles applied to the issues of jurisdiction. App’x
25–26. The Claims Court explained that Augusta I found
“Congress vested exclusive jurisdiction over cases for vet-
erans disability benefits with the Court of Appeals for Vet-
erans Claims” and Augusta II disposed of his “[d]ue
[p]rocess and [t]akings claims for lack of jurisdiction.”
App’x 25–26. Mr. Augusta’s failure to perfect an appeal in
these prior cases confirms that he is foreclosed from raising
the same jurisdictional issues in this case. See Int’l Air Re-
sponse v. United States, 302 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Augusta’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1040 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 04/15/2026

-- 4 of 4 --