George McDermott v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GEORGE MCDERMOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1526
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01398-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
George McDermott appeals from the judgment of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint for lack of jurisdiction. In response to this court’s
show cause order, the United States urges the court to
summarily affirm the decision, while Mr. McDermott
Case: 26-1526 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

MCDERMOTT v. US 2
moves to strike the show cause order and asks the court to
allow the appeal to proceed.1 We summarily affirm.
Mr. McDermott has a long history of litigation. In the
present case, he alleged “[b]reach of [c]ontract” by those he
referred to as “[corporate] [d]efendants [l]eading 32+years
of [c]ourt [c]orruption.” ECF No. 16 at 11. For relief, Mr.
McDermott asked to “[r]estore” his “[r]ight to [j]ury trial”
and “compel[ ] [l]ower [c]ourts [to] [r]estore [d]ockets.” Id.
at 12. Included with his complaint were: (1) a request for
mandamus relief to “compel inferior court officers and
agents,” asserting, inter alia, that courts in his prior cases
had issued “fraudulent unsigned orders” and “refus[ed] to
docket pleadings,” id. at 13–14 (capitalization omitted);
and (2) Cover Sheets stating that he was seeking $30–45
million; that the nature of the suit was “civil rights denied”;
and alleging “theft” of “business and personal residence”
through “judicial terrorism, obstruction of justice and falsi-
fication court records,” id. at 24 and 35. The Court of Fed-
eral Claims concluded that Mr. McDermott had failed to
“allege, much less demonstrate” the existence of a contract
with the federal government and dismissed for want of ju-
risdiction. Id. at 40. This appeal followed.
Summary affirmance is appropriate when the judg-
ment is “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no sub-
stantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the
jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to claims for
money damages against the United States based on
1 Contrary to Mr. McDermott’s suggestion, the show
cause order was in fact issued by a judge but signed by the
Clerk of Court. See Fed. Cir. R. 45(c) (authorizing the Clerk
of Court to sign a document “[f]or the [c]ourt” when directed
by a judge). Similarly, for avoidance of doubt, this order is
issued by a panel of three judges of this court.
Case: 26-1526 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

MCDERMOTT v. US 3
sources of substantive law that “can fairly be interpreted
as mandating compensation by the Federal Government.”
United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009)
(citation omitted). It omits from that court’s jurisdiction
claims that “sound[ ] in tort.” § 1491(a)(1). Moreover, con-
sistent with its “gap-filling role,” the Tucker Act does not
apply in those circumstances in which Congress has pro-
vided “a precisely drawn, detailed statute” that “contains
its own judicial remedies.” United States v. Bormes, 568
U.S. 6, 12–13 (2012) (citation omitted).
We agree with the government that dismissal here was
clearly correct. As the trial court correctly noted, the Court
of Federal Claims has no authority to review rulings in Mr.
McDermott’s other court proceedings. See Shinnecock In-
dian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (“Binding precedent establishes that the Court
of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to review the merits
of a decision rendered by a federal district court.”); Joshua,
17 F.3d at 380. The Court of Federal Claims was also
clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction to the extent Mr.
McDermott raised a civil rights violation, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343 (vesting jurisdiction with federal district courts to
hear civil rights claims), or claim sounding in tort, see
Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d
1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The Court of Federal Claims also found that Mr.
McDermott’s complaint did not raise a cognizable breach-
of-contract claim, and he has failed to make any cogent,
non-frivolous argument as to why that determination was
incorrect. If anything, his response confirms that his alle-
gation was, at bottom, merely a collateral attack on his
prior litigation that falls outside of the trial court’s review
authority. See, e.g., ECF No. 17 at 6 (“Appellees[’] repre-
sentative is[,] has[,] and was made fully aware that the con-
tract was entered into with the defendant officers and
agents when petitioner made his first court appearance in
the United States Bankruptcy Court . . . to alert the court
Case: 26-1526 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

MCDERMOTT v. US 4
of a fraud taking place against the defendant corporations
et al. When filing legal notices with the defendant corpo-
rations agents trying to prevent further frauds on the
court. What the defendant corporate agents failed to dis-
close their legal jurisdiction and capacity forcing petitioner
to pay US currency into the court system on the promise of
equal rights and equal protection under the law[.]”).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The Court of Federal Claims’s judgment is sum-
marily affirmed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 27, 2026
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 26-1526 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 07/27/2026

-- 4 of 4 --