In re: Quentin Blanchard

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2362 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2362

In re: QUENTIN W. BLANCHARD, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:25-cv-00938-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 28, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quentin W. Blanchard, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2362 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: In this petition for a writ of mandamus, Quentin W. Blanchard alleges that the district court has unduly delayed acting in his underlying civil suit. Blanchard seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Review of the district court’s docket shows that the court dismissed Blanchard’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on December 30, 2025. See Blanchard v. Gen. Servs. Admin., No. 1:25-cv-00938-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va., PACER No. 46). Because the district court recently decided Blanchard’s case, * we deny the mandamus petition as moot.

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.

PETITION DENIED

* To the extent that Blanchard asks this court to direct the district court to grant him relief on the merits, mandamus “may not be used as a substitute for appeal,” In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and we observe that Blanchard has already noted an appeal from the district court’s dispositive order.