claims sounding in tort from the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims). In sum, the court must dismiss plaintiffs constitutional, equitable, and tort claims for lack of jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiffs Claims for Breach of Contract Are Duplicative In addition to his noncontractual claims, plaintiff asserts several breaeh-of-eontract claims. First, he alleges that the United States breached an implied-in-fact contract that was created by the federal regulations governing the process for foreclosing property in which the Farm Service Agency holds an interest. However, as the court previously held in Lea, 2014 WL 2101367, at *3, federal regulations do not create contractual relationships between individuals and the United States, Martinez v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 851, 862-63 (2001) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 281 F.3d 1376 (Fed.Cir.2002);
holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety holding that for the government to be sued on a contract pursuant to the tucker act there must be privity of contract between the plaintiff and the united states holding that in order for a plaintiff to file suit against the government on a contract claim in the court of federal claims a plaintiff must have either direct privity or thirdparty beneficiary status holding that a federal regulation did not create privity of contract between the plaintiff and the government holding that absent privity between plaintiffs and the government there is no ease