Ramey Alaine Chisum v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RAMEY ALAINE CHISUM,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1548
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01666-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
______________________
Decided: November 14, 2025
______________________
RAMEY A. CHISUM , I, Kansas City, MO, pro se.
T ARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before CHEN, BRYSON , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 25-1548 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 11/14/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

CHISUM v. US 2
Ramey Alaine Chisum appeals a November 21, 2024 fi-
nal decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Claims
Court) dismissing her complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. SAppx 3.1 Because Ms. Chisum’s appeal to
this court was untimely, we lack jurisdiction and therefore
must dismiss.
BACKGROUND
On October 11, 2024, Ms. Chisum filed a complaint in
the Claims Court alleging she and her children were being
denied medical care by a medical institution called “Uni-
versity Health.” SAppx 5. The complaint also alleged that
the Department of Justice had failed to investigate her al-
legations. Id. at 6. Ms. Chisum’s complaint asked for in-
junctive relief to “cease all abusive actions” and to provide
an “opportunity to relocate to a more inclusive community.”
Id. at 7. Ms. Chisum attached several exhibits to the com-
plaint including Department of Justice organizational
charts, statistics, and email correspondence between her
and the Civil Rights Division. SAppx 13–52.
On November 20, 2024, the Claims Court issued a sua
sponte order directing the clerk of the court to dismiss
Ms. Chisum’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-
tion. SAppx 1–2. The Claims Court found it lacked juris-
diction over Ms. Chisum’s claims based on violations of
civil rights and housing discrimination statutes, the Amer-
icans with Disability Act, and the Health Insurance Porta-
bility and Accountability Act. Id. at 2. A day later, on
November 21, 2024, the clerk’s office issued a judgment dis-
missing the case. SAppx 3.
On March 14, 2025, Ms. Chisum filed a notice of ap-
peal. ECF No. 1; SAppx 4.
1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
with the government’s informal response brief.
Case: 25-1548 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 11/14/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

CHISUM v. US 3
D ISCUSSION
We have jurisdiction over appeals from the Claims
Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2522, “[r]eview of a decision of the [Claims Court] shall
be obtained by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the
[Claims Court] within the time and in the manner pre-
scribed for appeals to United States courts of appeals from
the United States district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2522. Pur-
suant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), a notice of appeal must
be filed within 60 days after entry of judgment when one of
the parties is the United States. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
“[T]he taking of an appeal within the prescribed time
is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’” Bowles v. Russell, 551
U.S. 205, 209 (2007) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Con-
sumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982) (per curiam)). An
untimely appeal from the Claims Court must be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction; there is no opportunity for waiver
or equitable tolling. Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d
913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214).
Because Ms. Chisum’s claims were filed against the
United States, she was required to file her notice within 60
days of November 21, 2024, the day the Claims Court en-
tered judgment in her suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2522; Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(B). Instead, Ms. Chisum filed her notice of ap-
peal on March 14, 2025, 113 days later. See ECF No. 1.
Thus, we lack jurisdiction over her claims and must dis-
miss. Bowles, 551 U.S. at 209; see also Sofarelli Assocs.,
Inc. v. United States, 716 F.2d 1395, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1548 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 11/14/2025

-- 3 of 3 --