UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of January, two thousand and five.

PRESENT:

HON. AMALYA L. KEARSE, HON. ROBERT D. SACK, HON. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

JAMES M. MURRAY Plaintiff-Appellant, -v- No. 02-9249, 02-9250

FLEET MORTGAGE GROUP, ROGER V. ARCHIBALD, Defendants-Appellees, GRACE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.

Appearing for Appellant: JAMES M. MURRAY, pro se, Deer Park, NY.

Appearing for Appellees: JOHN A. DICARO, Shapiro & DiCaro, LLP, Rochester, NY, for appellee Fleet Mortgage Group.

No appearance for appellees Roger V. Archibald and Grace Johnson.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Arthur D. Spatt, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgments of the district court be, and they hereby are, AFFIRMED.

The appellant, James M. Murray, appeals from orders of the district court denying his twin motions, brought under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b), for relief from the dismissal of the complaints in these actions pursuant to signed stipulations discontinuing the actions.

This appeal represents just one in a long line of actions initiated by Murray in this and other courts over the past several years, all aimed at delaying the foreclosure of his defaulted home mortgage. Complaining variously of fraud, violations of his due process rights, and judicial misconduct, Murray has pursued his efforts to the Supreme Court of the United States. See Murray v. Norstar Mortg. Corp., 29 Fed. Appx. 747

(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 840 (2002). Each of these claims has been rejected as without merit.

Murray's latest assertions, which essentially repeat his earlier claims and allege that he was coerced by the district court into signing the stipulations of dismissal, are no less frivolous. Murray offers these allegations without supporting evidence. Accordingly, reviewing the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion, Transaero, Inc.

v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir. 1998), we affirm.

In so doing, we note that the district court has ordered Murray not to file any papers in connection with this case without first seeking, in writing, the court's permission to do so. This Court, too, has cautioned Murray against abusing the judicial process and making unsubstantiated allegations. See Murray, 29 Fed. Appx. at 749. While we are not unsympathetic to Murray's plight, we warn Murray once again that if he continues to abuse the judicial process by filing frivolous motions and appeals, he will be subject to sanctions, including an injunction limiting his ability in the future to file with the court further actions or papers. See, e.g., In re Martin-Trigona, 795 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir. 1986) (per curiam), modified sub nom., Martin-Trigona v. Cohen, 876 F.2d 307, 308 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the district court are hereby AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, Clerk By: Date