Kam v. Peyton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 24, 2021
• Docket: 21-10127
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-10127 Document: 00515913123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED June 24, 2021 No. 21-10127 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

Carol M. Kam,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

John B. Peyton, Jr.,

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18-CV-1447

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* 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)

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-10127 Document: 00515913123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021

No. 21-10127

(per curiam), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 494 (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.