Darryl Bagley v. Department of Veterans Affairs

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3756
___________________________
Darryl Bagley
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Department of Veterans Affairs
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: September 19, 2024
Filed: September 24, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Darryl Bagley appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his pro se action
against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for lack of subject matter
1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction. We agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
Bagley’s claims seeking review of his prior VA benefits decisions, because review
of such decisions lies exclusively with other courts. See Newcombe v. United States,
933 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 2019) (VA benefits determinations are reviewed under
separate appeals process by Board of Veterans’ Appeals, then Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims, then United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and
ultimately Supreme Court; district court does not have jurisdiction over any claim that
would require it to review VA benefits determination); In re Russell, 155 F.3d 1012,
1013 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (United States has not waived its sovereign
immunity as to review of VA procedures by any court other than Court of Veterans
Appeals, Federal Circuit, and Supreme Court). We also find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Bagley’s motions for default judgment, as the VA
timely answered his complaint by filing its motion to dismiss within 60 days of
service. See Doe v. Fort Zumwalt R-II Sch. Dist., 920 F.3d 1184, 1191 (8th Cir.
2019) (standard of review; no abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment against defendant who timely filed responsive pleading).
Accordingly, we affirm, but we clarify that the dismissal was without prejudice.
See 8th Cir. R. 47B; cf. Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1091 (8th Cir. 2011)
(modifying dismissal based on sovereign immunity to be without prejudice).
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --