Quentin W. Blanchard v. General Services Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1010
QUENTIN W. BLANCHARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00938-MSN-WEF)
Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 3, 2026
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quentin W. Blanchard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Quentin W. Blanchard appeals the district court’s order dismissing for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction the pro se civil action Blanchard brought against the General
Services Administration (GSA). Blanchard sought $49.6 million in contract payments and
$20 million in compensatory damages stemming from GSA’s alleged failure to perform
under various contracts with his company, Blanchard’s Contracting LLC. The district
court granted GSA’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the
court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because, under the so-called “Big”
Tucker Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), any breach of contract claim seeking more than
$10,000 in damages must be brought in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Blanchard’s informal brief as supplemented does not challenge the
district court’s jurisdictional ruling, we hold that he has forfeited appellate review of the
court’s dismissal order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The
informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited
to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --