This is Carol Kams second appeal of the district courts dismissal of her claims against the state judge who presided over her brothers probate. This court previously affirmed the district courts dismissal pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Kam v. Peyton, 773 F. Appx 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 Kams 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 partys briefs, the district courts opinion, the applicable law, and the entire record, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the district courts 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FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.