PER CURIAM:
Marie Reed sued numerous defendants, alleging state and federal claims generally based on a notion of false arrest and false imprisonment. Her complaint was dismissed, and we affirmed, agreeing with the district court that the claims were prescribed and that she should not be allowed to amend. See Reed v. Edwards, 487 Fed.Appx. 904 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam). Two weeks later, Reed sued again, making the same claims and more.
In a comprehensive report, the magistrate judge recommended the claims be barred by res judicata, finding that the new complaint “is both frivolous and malicious.” As for claims made against additional defendants, the magistrate judge explained that the assertions were also frivolous and that “none of the plaintiffs complaints ... contain any factual allegations which could even arguably support a federal claim.” The district court approved the report and dismissed the complaint.
Essentially for the reasons capably stated by the magistrate judge, there is no merit to the second suit, and this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Reed’s motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.