BLD-271 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Indi vidual Capacity; MICHAEL E. HUBNER, J.S.C., in Official

Capacity as Judge of Superior Court, a nd 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, JE NSEN & 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 Circu it 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 op inion of the full Court and pu rsuant 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 Janua ry 2016, Ippolito in itiated 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 interven tion in the state court matter and dismissed his claims. Nearly two years later, Ip polito 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 C ourt denied his motion, and Ippolito timely appealed. 1
The District Court did not err in de nying Ippolito’s motion. Although Ippolito cited Rule 60(b)(6) and 60(b)(6) in his mo tion, he did not demonstrate that he was entitled to relief from the District Court’s ear lier ruling because the judgment was void or for any other reason. Further, as the District Court concluded, to the ex tent that Ippolito requested in his motion that the District Court vacate state court judgments entered

1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 291. 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 th e ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as long as the district court has completely disposed of the matter.”) (citation om itted). Generally, we review orders denying Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion, but we exercise plenary review over orders granting or de nying 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 sup ported 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 (1 994); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 5 44 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars district cour ts 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 dispos ition, his request is denied.