Case Name: Travis R. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-23
Citations: 673 F. App'x 449
Docket Number: No. 16-50692 Summary Calendar
Parties: Travis R. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
Travis R. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee
No. 16-50692 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 23, 2017
Brandon W. Beasley, Law Office of Brandon W. Beasley, PL.L.C., Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Marcie Lynn Schout, Esq., William Lance Lewis, Esq., Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
For the fifth time, Travis Phillips ("Phillips") filed suit in an effort to block foreclosure on his home by the lender, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"). After taking judicial notice of materials from the fourth lawsuit, the district court granted Chase's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Phillips challenges only the district court's adverse decision on Phillips's claim that the attempted foreclosure is untimely.
In the district court, Phillips argued that Chase previously accelerated the debt in question and then failed to foreclose within the relevant limitations period. Chase argued, and the district court agreed, that its April 11, 2014 letter represented an abandonment of the earlier acceleration and that Phillips's efforts to distinguish relevant precedents are unavailing. We agree with the district court. See Boren v. U.S. Nat'l Bank Assoc., 807 F.3d 99, 106 (5th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.