
    Elizabeth THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARDYSS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-20274
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 11, 2011.
    Elizabeth Thomas, Tomball, TX, pro se.
    Melvin L. Smith, Jr., Esq., Jamie Russell Bures, Mel Smith & Associates, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Thomas appeals the dismissal of this federal civil suit on grounds that a Texas court judgment is a res judicata bar. Thomas has failed to establish that the district court erred in dismissing her suit. See Black v. North Panola Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 584, 588 (5th Cir.2006); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862-66 (Tex.2010). Her collateral attacks on the state court judgment-whieh confirmed an arbitration award-and on that arbitration agreement and on the arbitration award as well, are barred by res judicata. See Oreck Direct, LLC v. Dyson, Inc., 560 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir.2009) (citing In re Williams, 298 F.3d 458, 461-62 (5th Cir.2002)). The dismissal of Thomas’s suit on res judicata grounds renders moot her challenge to the district court’s order compelling arbitration. See Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir.1998); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987).

Thomas’s contention that the district court abused its discretion in granting a stay based on the Colorado River abstention has no merit. Cf. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 408 F.3d 248, 250-51 (5th Cir.2005).

The motion for sanctions is denied. Cf. Fed. R.App. P. 46(c); In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 645, 105 S.Ct. 2874, 86 L.Ed.2d 504 (1985). The motion for judicial notice and amended motion for judicial notice are denied as unnecessary. Thomas’s pleading entitled “Review of Judicial Notice Decision,” to the extent that it moves for judicial notice, is denied. Cf. Fed.R.Evid. 201(a).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     