Tatum v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit WAYNE TATUM, Plain,tiff-Appellan.t, V. UNITED STATES, Defendcmt-Appellee. 2011-5130 - Appea1 from the United States Court of Federal C1aims in case n0. 10-CV-510, Judge Mary E11en C0ster Williarns. ON MOTION Before NEWMAN, LINN, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States moves to summarily affirm the United States Court of Federa1 C1aims’ June 27, 2011 order dismissing Wayne Taturn’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction TATUM V. US 2 Tatum served in the United States Marine Corps from November 3, 1970, until his discharge on December 2, 1993 On August 3, 2010, Tatum filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking correction of his military records as well as a promotion, back pay, and military benefits The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the suit, find- ing Tatum’s claims time-barred Specifically, the court found that Tatum filed his complaint outside the six year statue of limitations period which began to accrue at the time of his military discharge on December 2, 1993. Tatum appealed to this court. Summary affirmance of a "is appropriate, inter alio, when the position of one party is 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). In the present case, it is clear that summary affirmance is warranted The Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that Tatum’s complaint was time-barred In Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2003), this court held that a plaintiffs cause of action challenging a military discharge and seeking related back pay begins to accrue on the date of the plaintiffs discharge. Because Tatum did not bring his complaint within six years of his discharge in Decemher of 1993, the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over the complaint. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. u. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (concluding that the six-year statue of limitations is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.) Accordingly, I'1‘ ls 0RDERED THAT: 3 TA'1‘UM V. US (1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted The Court of Federal Claims' judgment is affirmed (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FoR THE CoUR'1‘ 1 3 lsi Jan Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk » cc: Wayne Tatum Jessica R. T0plin, Esq. FlLED . 320 us coumoFAPPcALsFon THE FEDERAL ClHCUlT JAN 13 2012 JAN HOHBAlV CLERK