
    Bobie Kenneth TOWNSEND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Successor By Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.; Federal National Mortgage Association; Any and all Known or Unknown Doe Entities 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-20762
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 13, 2014.
    Bobie Kenneth Townsend, Conroe, TX, pro se.
    Richard Dwayne Danner, Litigation Counsel, Nathan Templeton Anderson, Attorney, McGlinchey Stafford, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, John L. Verner, McGlinchey Stafford, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES , Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment only.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant, Bobie Kenneth Townsend, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s October 23, 2013 Final Judgment that granted Defendants-Appel-lees’ summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all of Townsend’s claims and related motions, and the court’s November 26, 2013 Memorandum and Order that denied Townsend’s several post-judgment motions and objections. In its initial Memorandum and Order, the district court addressed Townsend’s Motion for Reconsideration, Plea to Jurisdiction, and Motion for Summary Judgment, and his Claim to Quiet Title, as well as Defendants-Appellees’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. In its subsequent Memorandum and Order, the district court addressed Townsend’s Objection, Motion to Amend, Motion for New Trial, and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. We affirm the judgments and orders of the district court for the reasons set forth in its Memorandum and Order of October 23, 2013, and in its additional Memorandum and Order of November 26, 2013.

This appeal is the culmination of a saga that began in June 2004 with Townsend’s purchase of residential property in Conroe, Texas, including his execution of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. This was followed by Townsend’s tax protest in the form of refusing to pay his 2006 and 2007 property taxes on that real estate. That in turn led to this protracted litigation which eventually resulted in the district court’s 2013 judgments and orders that Townsend appeals here.

Just as the Defendant-Appellees patiently addressed Townsend’s largely baseless pleadings and assertions, and just as the district court patiently addressed his numerous claims and contentions, we have patiently reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and both of the district court’s memoranda and orders. Our review leads us to conclude that there is no merit in any of Townsend’s contentions on appeal. Neither do they warrant further discussion or explanation. Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are, in all respects,

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     