NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 22-2730 ___________

AARON J. BRESSI, Appellant

v.

TRACY MCCLOUD; BRITTANY DUKE; RONALD MCCLAY; MATTHEW NARCAVAGE; DANIEL SHOOP; JILL HENRICH; TERRY KECHEM; PATROLMAN ADAMS; CHRISTOPHER LAPOTSKY; JOHN GEMBIC; OFFICE CLERKS, Sunbury District Magistrate; MICHAEL P. TOOMEY; MICHAEL SEWARD; DEGG STARK; JILL FRY; CHARLES SAYLOR; PAIGE ROSINI; WARDEN SNYDER COUNTY PRISON; OFFICE CLERKS, Snyder County Prison; EDWARD GRECO; MICHAEL SUIDERS; JAMES BEST; VINCE ROVITO; RACHAEL GLASSO; AMY STOAK; KIMBERLY BICKERT; CATHY DUZICK; MICHAEL FANTAGROSSE; JENNIFER FANTAGROSSE; RICHARD STIENHEART; GINGER STIENHEART; JEFFREY LEACH; DENISE CARNUCCIO; JEFFREY LONG; TYLER MUMMY; KIMBERLY SEDDON; CHASTITY SEDDON; WARDEN BRUCE KOVACH; DEPUTY WARDEN JAMES SMINK; and COUNSELOR SAMUEL KRANZEL ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 4:18-cv-01345) District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 13, 2023 Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 16, 2023)

___________ OPINION * ___________

PER CURIAM

Proceeding pro se, Aaron Bressi filed a civil rights action against dozens of

people. The District Court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and

1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. We affirmed. See Bressi v. McCloud, C.A. Nos.

20-1077 & 20-1758,

, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2021) (per curiam).

Months later, Bressi twice asked the District Court to “refile” his case. The

District Court entered a pair of orders denying relief, the second of which stated that

Bressi had “failed to provide any basis to reopen this case” and that “[t]he Court will not

entertain any further motions to ‘refile’ in this matter.” This timely appeal of the second

order followed.

We have appellate jurisdiction under

. Bressi’s opening brief

merely re-argues the merits of his prior appeal in the underlying litigation, and at times

mistakenly references a decision of this Court resolving one of his appeals in separate

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 litigation. In short, nowhere in the brief does Bressi identify a valid basis to disturb the

order of the District Court that is the subject of this appeal. 1 Accordingly, we will affirm.

1 Bressi’s post-briefing motion requesting that the Court accept a document from his separate, pending habeas proceeding as “evidence towards [this] case” is denied. 3