Opinion
No. 16-1042
05-04-2016
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis [Unpublished] Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Inez Hunter appeals after the District Court denied her motion for postjudgment relief in this pro se action related to the purchase and financing of a car. We conclude that the motion was properly denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (time limits for filing a motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 620 F.3d 873, 879 (8th Cir. 2010) (denying a Rule 60(d)(3) motion filed five years after judgment because the litigant was not without fault and the rule has an "equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault"); SDDS, Inc. v. South Dakota (In re SDDS, Inc.), 225 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that a Rule 60(b) motion cannot "be used to collaterally attack a final court of appeals' ruling in lieu of a proper petition for review in the United States Supreme Court"), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1007 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm.
The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. --------