Case Name: Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah OMRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Nicole Roy; Unknown Defendant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-07
Citations: 714 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 17-30535 Summary Calendar
Parties: Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah OMRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Nicole Roy; Unknown Defendant, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah OMRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Nicole Roy; Unknown Defendant, Defendants-Appellees
No. 17-30535 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 7, 2018
Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah Omran, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah Omran unsuccessfully pursued claims based on alleged damage to his laptop, and we dismissed his appeal as frivolous. See Omran v. United States, 668 Fed.Appx. 131, 131-32 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1343, 197 L.Ed.2d 532 (2017). He now appeals the dismissal of a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in an attempt to revive his dismissed claims. We affirm.
Omran fails to demonstrate that the original judgment is void or any other basis for Rule 60(b) relief. See Norris v. Causey, 869 F.3d 360, 366 (6th Cir. 2017); Pryor v. U.S. Postal Service, 769 F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, under these circumstances, he also fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by prohibiting the filing of additional meritless challenges to the judgment in this closed case. See Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359-60 (5th Cir. 1986).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.