Case Name: Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, Precious Okereke, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS; Dorchester District Court of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-23
Citations: 434 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 11-5071
Parties: Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, Precious Okereke, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS; Dorchester District Court of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 434
Pages: 757–757

Head Matter:
Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, Precious Okereke, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS; Dorchester District Court of Massachusetts, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-5071.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 23, 2011.
Chukwuma E. Azubuko, Boston, MA, pro se.
Precious Okereke, pro se.
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After examining Plaintiffs' brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
In 2005, Plaintiffs initiated this civil action against the University of Massachusetts and the Dorchester District Court. The action was dismissed by the district court for failure to pay the required filing fees, and we dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal for lack of prosecution. Nearly five years later, Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief, which the district court denied. Their subsequent motion for a three-judge panel was likewise denied. This appeal followed.
We see no error in the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' post-judgment motions, and we therefore AFFIRM that court's rulings. Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pawperis on appeal is DENIED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.