IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60737 Summary Calendar EZZAT E MAJD POUR Plaintiff - Appellant v. JAMES WILSON; MIKE MOORE; R B FLOWERS; SHEA LEATHERNMAN; E M HOOD, JR.; BARBARA T JEPSON; NICHOLAS HOWARD; TUNICA HOSPITAL INC; EDWIN ORR; BILLY RUSSELL; PARIS PRINCE; JAMES E DANIEL; LARRY BLACK; JEAN BLACK; BLACK & MARLOW INCORPORATION; NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH CARE CORP, Administration and Board Members; THOMAS E STEVENS; JOSEPH JOHNSON; FRANK MORGAN; STAN INGRAM; GEORGE C HAMILTON, JR; BRUCE C ATKINSON; ARTHUR A DERRICK; ANTHONY BRADSHAW; W W WALLEY; ROBERT B TOWNS; WALTER H ROSE; JOHN R SHELL; RODRIGO GALVEZ; WILLIAM MARTIN WOOD; MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL BOARD, and Members; DAN FITZPATRICK; HARLAN HOSPITAL BOARD MEMBERS; ROBERT BONNER; UNKNOWN MILLER, Agent; CHARLES R JENKINS; PAUL R MOORE, SR; ALBERT L MEENA Defendants - Appellees -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:99-CV-869-WS -------------------- June 22, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellant Ezzat E. Majd Pour, M.D. (Pour) filed this action against numerous defendants, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on claims of conspiracy to commit and commission of hate crimes, invasion of privacy, libel, slander, * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.  No. 00-60737 -2- and murder. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice on grounds of res judicata and claim preclusion. The district court also enjoined Pour from filing any other papers in that court without prior leave of court. We AFFIRM, substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum opinion, Pour v. Moore, No. 3:99-CV-869WS (S.D. Miss. Aug. 31, 2000)(unpublished). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requests of appellees Orr, Hamilton, Wood, and Howard for this court to broaden the district court’s injunction are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pour’s motions to strike appellee Orr’s brief, to file an amended reply brief to Orr’s brief, and to file a motion as a supplement to Pour’s own reply brief, are DENIED. AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.