Samuel J. May v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SAMUEL J. MAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1592
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01049-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before PROST, M AYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for sum-
mary disposition. 1 We grant summary affirmance.
1 Samuel J. May also seeks leave to file a corrected
reply in support of his motion for summary disposition,
Case: 26-1592 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

MAY v. US 2
This is the second time Samuel J. May has filed an ap-
peal from the United States Court of Federal Claims’s dis-
missal of a complaint seeking a share of a 2012 settlement
between the federal government and his former employer.
In the first appeal, May v. United States, No. 2023-1124,
2023 WL 3836088 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023), this court af-
firmed the dismissal of his takings and contract claims as
time-barred and his remaining constitutional, tort, and 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claims as outside of that court’s limited ju-
risdiction. In the present action, the Court of Federal
Claims dismissed his claims as barred by issue preclusion
and also outside of that court’s limited jurisdiction.
We agree with the government that dismissal here was
“so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial
question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.”
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The trial court reasonably understood the present com-
plaint as based on the same underlying events related to
the 2012 settlement and that the only material difference
is that the present action relies on 31 U.S.C. § 5323 (au-
thorizing payment to whistleblowers who meet certain
qualifications), the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, and the
“legislative history of trust under” the False Claims Act
and Prompt Payment Act. ECF No. 9 at SAppx138,
SAppx139, SAppx140, SAppx141, SAppx142, SAppx144.
The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that those
claims are subject to at least the same jurisdictional defects
as his prior claims.
The court has considered Mr. May’s various filings but
finds them to present no cognizable basis for relief. Mr.
May incorrectly argues that he was entitled to entry of
judgment based on district court judgments surrounding
the 2012 settlement that, contrary to his assertions, did not
ECF No. 11, and files a sur-reply, ECF No. 14, which the
court construes as a motion for leave to file said sur-reply.
Case: 26-1592 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

MAY v. US 3
entitle him to a portion of the settlement.2 Nor has he
shown entitlement to entry of default judgment, at least
because the court lacked jurisdiction over his case. See
Court of Federal Claims Rule 55(b)(2). Because we agree
that his challenges to the judgment and request for remand
are frivolous, we summarily affirm.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) Mr. May’s motion for summary disposition, ECF
No. 7, is denied. Mr. May’s motion for leave to file a cor-
rected filing is granted to the extent that ECF No. 12 is
accepted as Mr. May’s corrected reply in support of his mo-
tion and opposition to the government’s motion. Mr. May’s
motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted to the extent
that ECF No. 14 is accepted for filing.
(2) The government’s motion for summary affirmance,
ECF No. 8, is granted. The judgment of the United States
Court of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.
2 Mr. May appears to rely on Court of Federal Claims
Rule 9(e), but that rule is of no help to him. It merely pro-
vides that in “pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic
or foreign court, . . . it suffices to plead the judgment or
decision without showing jurisdiction to render it.” Noth-
ing in that rule calls into question the judgment of the
Court of Federal Claims dismissing this case.
Case: 26-1592 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

MAY v. US 4
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
June 29, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-1592 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 4 of 4 --