
    John POULLARD, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. Joseph M. TURNER, Captain; et al., Defendants, Joseph M. Turner, Captain; Lonnie Edmonds, Lieutenant; Michael Levatino, Lieutenant; Don Thames; Sergeant, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.
    No. 03-30313.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 9, 2003.
    
      John Poullard, pro se, Homer, LA, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant. Andre’ Charles Castaing, Office of the Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

John Poullard, Louisiana prisoner # 98999, appeals the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The appellees have moved for Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

Poullard argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement reached between the parties, because it had already entered judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. We reject this argument because Poullard did not move the district court to enforce the settlement agreement, his post-judgment motion moved to reopen the litigation to litigate the punitive damages issue he contended was not encompassed by the terms of the settlement. Cf. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (“enforcement of a settlement agreement, ... is more than just a continuation of the renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction”). We further hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the case to litigate the punitive damages issue; the settlement agreement is not ambiguous insofar as it purports to settle “any and all claims.” See Mid-Continent Cos. Co. v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 205 F.3d 222, 230 (5th Cir.2000) (unambiguous settlement agreement reviewed de novo). Furthermore, the district court found that Poullard was informed by the court during the settlement conference that he was releasing both compensatory and punitive damages claims.

The appellees motion for Rule 38 sanctions is denied.

AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS MOTION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     