### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40168 Summary Calendar

JOE O. RODRIGUEZ, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant

v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loans; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13 -CV- 133

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joe O. Rodriguez, Jr., who proceeds pro se in this appeal, fil ed a pro se complaint in Texas s tate c ourt against Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. , Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) , and Recontrust Co., N. A. (Recon) , claiming his property was sold improperly following foreclosure because BOA did not possess the promissory note that was secured by the property. Following

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Uni ted States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED July 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40168 Document: 00514081458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2017No. 16

- 40168

2 removal to federal court, summary judgment was awarded on the grounds o f res judicata to all defendants except Recon ; Recon was granted summary judgment on the merits. Our court affirmed. Rodriguez v. Bank of America, N.A. , 588 F. App’x 356 (5th Cir. 2014). Rodriguez then moved for relief from judgment pursuant to various sections of F ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The district court found the Rule 60(b)(2) and (b)(3) claims had not been brought within a reasonable time , and were therefore barred under Rule 60(c)(1). ( Rodriquez does not challenge these conclusions on appeal. ) Add itionally, the court ruled Rodriguez’ factual assertions were conclusory and did not support his remaining Rule 60(d)(3) and (b)(4) claims for post- judgment relief. First, Rodriguez maintains the court erred in denying his fraud -on-thecourt claim under Rule 60(d)(3), in which he alleged evidence was withheld during discovery. The denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g. , Buck v. Thaler , 452 F. App’x 423, 431 (5th Cir. 2011)

. In making this claim , however, Rodriguez has simply repeated his allegations, which the district court deemed to be conclusory

. Accordingly, Rodriguez has not proven his assertions , and
t he court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(d)(3). Se e Rozier v. Ford Motor Co. , 573 F.2d 1332, 1338

– 39 (5 th Cir. 1978) ; see also Buck , 452 F. App’x at 431. Next, Rodriguez a sserts the court erred in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(4) , contending the original judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction

. Because it is a jurisdictional issue, Rule 60(b)(4) claims are reviewed de novo

. See Carter v. Fenner , 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998 ). A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) only if the court lacked subject

- matter or personal jurisdiction, or if it “ acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law ”. Id. at 1006 (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). Rodriguez ’ lack

- Case: 16-40168 Document: 00514081458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2017No. 16

- 40168

3 of-jurisdiction assertion relies on the validity of his withheld-evidence claims, which the district court dismissed. Therefore, he has not shown either a jurisdictional flaw or a violation of procedural due process. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-40168 Document: 00514081458 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/20/2017