Mark C. Jackson v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MARK C. JACKSON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, Secretary of Veterans Af-
fairs,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2026-1278
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 25-4708, Judge Joseph L. Toth.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
On November 18, 2025, the United States Court of Ap-
peals for Veterans Claims issued an order denying Mark C.
Jackson’s motion to expedite proceedings and to compel the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to file the Record Before the
Agency (“RBA”). The order continued the stay pending
Case: 26-1278 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 02/25/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

JACKSON v. COLLINS 2
resolution of a dispute regarding the RBA and provided
that Mr. Jackson could file a renewed motion to expedite
once the RBA dispute was resolved.1 Mr. Jackson then
filed this “interlocutory appeal.” ECF No. 1-2 at 2. He also
moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we have jurisdiction over a
“decision” of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Consistent with longstanding traditions of the federal
courts system and to help “avoid unnecessary piecemeal
appellate review,” our cases have “generally declined to re-
view non-final orders of the Veterans Court,” Williams v.
Principi, 275 F.3d 1361, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted), which includes the
order sought to be appealed. We see no conceivable basis
for any exception to that general rule here. For example,
one such exception is where the Court of Appeals for Vet-
erans Claims certifies an interlocutory appeal, 38 U.S.C.
§ 7292(b)(1), but no such certification has issued here.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed, and all pending motions
are denied.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
February 25, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
1 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs recently filed a
status report noting that he believed the dispute resolved.
Case: 26-1278 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 02/25/2026

-- 2 of 2 --