
    Stephen P. WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 2007-5134.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Oct. 9, 2007.
    Rehearing En Banc Denied Nov. 14, 2007.
    Stephen P. Wallace, of Tulsa, OK, pro se.
    Marla T. Conneely, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appel-lee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General and Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Mark A. Melnick, Assistant Director.
    
      Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and KEELEY, Chief Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Irene M. Keeley, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Stephen P. Wallace filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging, among other things, that proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma resulted in the conversion of his assets. He asserted that the bankruptcy trustees denied him “all federally protected rights under Chapter 11-Reorganiza-tion.” After explaining that it had no jurisdiction to conduct a collateral review of the decisions of another federal court, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Wallace’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

On appeal, Mr. Wallace contends that the “trial court refused to take into account six separate filings which the trial court removed from the Record without explanation.” However, Mr. Wallace provides no evidence that these pleadings were properly filed with the trial court. Furthermore, the pleadings simply reiterate his challenges to decisions made during his bankruptcy proceedings, which the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to review. See Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2001). Therefore, even if these pleadings had been properly filed and considered by the trial court, they do not raise issues that the Court of Federal Claims has authority to address. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Wallace’s complaint.  