Chowdhury v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedSeptember 26, 2025
Docket25-1918
StatusUnpublished

This text of Chowdhury v. United States (Chowdhury v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chowdhury v. United States, (Fed. Cir. 2025).

Opinion

Case: 25-1918 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ENAMUL HAQE CHOWDHURY, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1918 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01544-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to this court’s August 7, 2025 order direct- ing the parties to show cause, the United States argues the case should be dismissed as untimely. Enamul Haqe Chowdhury submits his opening brief, in which he urges the court to apply “equitable tolling.” ECF No. 7 at 3. He separately moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Case: 25-1918 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2025

On October 2, 2024, the United States Court of Federal Claims entered judgment dismissing Mr. Chowdhury’s complaint. The Court of Federal Claims received Mr. Chowdhury’s notice of appeal on July 3, 2025, 274 days af- ter entry of judgment. The timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final judg- ment of the Court of Federal Claims is a jurisdictional re- quirement that cannot be waived and is not subject to equitable tolling. Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); cf. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011). Mr. Chowdhury had 60 days to file his notice of appeal from the Court of Federal Claims’s judgment, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 2107(b), 2522; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C), but he failed to do so. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the final judgment and must dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied. (3) Each party shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

September 26, 2025 Date

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Henderson v. Shinseki
131 S. Ct. 1197 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Marandola v. United States
518 F.3d 913 (Federal Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chowdhury v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chowdhury-v-united-states-cafc-2025.