Kenneth Heagy, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee, 848 F.2d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

DECISION

The judgment of the United States Claims Court, 12 Cl.Ct. 694 (1987) (Bruggink, J.), dismissing the action in part for lack of jurisdiction and in part for failure to prove an alleged breach of contract, is affirmed on the basis of the opinion of the Claims Court.

OPINION

The United States Claims Court held that neither the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution nor the Administrative Procedure Act, relied on by appellant, waives sovereign immunity to mandate payment of money damages by the government, and there is no jurisdiction in the Claims Court to consider such claims based thereon. Further, the court held that the record did not support a breach claim and it granted summary judgment as to such claim. Finally, the Claims Court held that it had no legal basis for substituting the court's interpretation, or that of another party, for the reasonable interpretation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development of its own regulations. To the extent that the Claims Court based its judgment on findings of fact, the judgment has not been shown to be clearly erroneous. On other issues decided by the Claims Court, we hold the court was correct as a matter of law.