KAM v. PEYTON (2021)

This is Carol Kam's second appeal of the district court's dismissal of her claims against the state judge who presided over her brother's probate. This court previously affirmed the district court's dismissal pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Kam v. Peyton, 773 F. App'x 784 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 494, 205 L.Ed.2d 320 (2019) (mem.). Kam then moved to vacate the Rooker-Feldman dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district court denied Kam's Rule 60(b) motion as untimely and otherwise meritless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c); Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 894 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir. 1990); Carter v. Dolce, 741 F.2d 758, 759 (5th Cir. 1984). Kam filed this pro se appeal. Upon review of the party's briefs, the district court's opinion, the applicable law, and the entire record, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court's opinion and order.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.