PER CURIAM
In 2021, pro se appellant Antoine Poteat initiated a federal civil action in the District Court bringing constitutional and tort claims. His claims were dismissed, and this Court affirmed the dismissal in 2023. See Poteat v. Lydon, No. 22-2114, 2023 WL 6620368, at *3 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2023). A year later, in October 2024, Poteat filed two motions for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) in the District Court, seeking reinstatement of his case and relief on his claims. Soon after, Poteat filed an amended Rule 60(b) motion, incorporating the arguments from his other motions. On December 16, 2024, the District Court dismissed Poteat's first two motions as moot, noting that he had filed an amended Rule 60(b) motion.
Poteat timely appealed.1 However, we discern no error in the District Court's dismissal of Poteat's first two Rule 60(b) motions as moot after he filed a third amended Rule 60(b) motion that incorporated the arguments in his prior motions.2See Budget * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
2
Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2008) (reviewing disposition of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982) ("[M]atters of docket control . . . are committed to the sound discretion of the district court."). Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court's December 16, 2024 order.3
Paiewonsky Assocs., Inc. v. Sharp Props., Inc., 998 F.2d 145, 150 (3d Cir. 1993) (explaining the appealability of post-judgment rulings); Ohntrup v. Firearms Ctr., Inc.,
802 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986) (per curiam) ("[M]ost post judgment orders are final decisions within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as long as the district court has completely disposed of the matter.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
3