Lowery v. Cheboygan Area Public Schools

Opinion

Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/28/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MARLIN D. LOWERY, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SPENCER BYRD, Cheboygan School Superintendent, MARLENE ALEXANDER, Cheboygan Schools Hu- man Resource Director, LEO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, JULIA DALE, UIA Director, UIA DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TERRY BURNS, UIA In- ternal Controls Division Administrator, UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEES, 1-3, STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2025-1590 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in No. 1:24-cv-11604-LVP- PTM, Judge Linda V. Parker. ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/28/2025

Marlin D. Lowery filed this suit against various state and local officials and entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding denial of unemployment benefits. The district court dismissed, and Mr. Lowery filed a motion for reconsideration (which remains pending) and a notice of appeal directed to this court. In response to this court’s April 14, 2025 order to show cause, appellees argue the ap- peal should be dismissed. Mr. Lowery files an opening brief but not a separate response. In general, we only have authority to review decisions from district courts in cases that arise under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or cases that involve cer- tain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see § 1295(a)(2). This case does not fall within that limited ju- risdiction. Under the circumstances, we conclude transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1631. 1 Accordingly,

1 Appellees argue, in part, that the appeal should be dismissed because of Mr. Lowery’s pending motion for re- consideration. Though that may render the notice of ap- peal not yet effective, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), we deem it more appropriate to transfer than dismiss under the circumstances. Cf. Slep-Tone Ent. Corp. v. Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., 782 F.3d 712, 717–18 (6th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e stay the appeal pending the district court’s resolu- tion of [the] pending post-judgment motion.” (collecting cases)). Case: 25-1590 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 05/28/2025

LOWERY v. CHEBOYGAN AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: This appeal and all case filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. FOR THE COURT

May 28, 2025 Date