BLD-271 

 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 18-1034 

___________ 

TOBIA IPPOLITO, 

 Appellant 

v. 

LISA IPPOLITO; THOMAS J. CRITCHLEY, JR., J.S.C., in Official Capacity as Judge 

of Superior Court, and Individual Capacity; MICHAEL E. HUBNER, J.S.C., in Official 

Capacity as Judge of Superior Court, and Individual Capacity; PHILLIP J. MAENZA, 

J.S.C., in Official Capacity as Judge of Superior Court, and Individual Capacity; 

SEBASTIAN M. CICITTA; LUCILLE A. CICITTA; WILLIAM LAUFER, ESQ.; 

LAUFER, DALENA, CADICINA, JENSEN & BOYD, LLC the firm 

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey 

(D.N.J. Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00531) 

District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares 

____________________________________ 

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

September 5, 2019 

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PORTER, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: September 11, 2019) 

_________ 

OPINION*

 

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
2 

PER CURIAM 

 Pro se appellant Tobia Ippolito appeals from the District Court’s denial of a 

“motion for relief from judgment” he filed, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6). In January 2016, Ippolito initiated an action in the District Court 

relating to a then-pending state court matter. In February 2016, the District Court denied 

Ippolito’s requests for intervention in the state court matter and dismissed his claims. 

 Nearly two years later, Ippolito filed a motion in the District Court citing Rule 

60(b). In his motion, Ippolito solely requested that several state court judgments entered 

against him be vacated. The District Court denied his motion, and Ippolito timely 

appealed.1

 The District Court did not err in denying Ippolito’s motion. Although Ippolito 

cited Rule 60(b)(6) and 60(b)(6) in his motion, he did not demonstrate that he was 

entitled to relief from the District Court’s earlier ruling because the judgment was void or 

for any other reason. Further, as the District Court concluded, to the extent that Ippolito 

requested in his motion that the District Court vacate state court judgments entered 

 

1

 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Ohntrup v. 

Firearms Ctr., Inc., 802 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (“[M]ost post 

judgment orders are final decisions within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as long as the 

district court has completely disposed of the matter.”) (citation omitted). Generally, we 

review orders denying Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion, but we exercise 

plenary review over orders granting or denying relief under Rule 60(b)(4). See Budget 

Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2008). We may summarily affirm 

a district court’s decision “on any basis supported by the record” if the appeal fails to 

present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) 

(per curiam). 
3 

against him, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a losing state-court party “from seeking 

what in substance would be appellate review of [a] state judgment in a United States 

district court.” See Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994); see also Exxon 

Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars district courts from reviewing and rejecting unfavorable 

state court judgments). Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the 

District Court.2

 

2

 Ippolito has requested declaratory relief on appeal relating to state court rulings that 

were entered against him, as discussed above. In light of our disposition, his request is 

denied.