Inez Hunter v. Ford Motor Company

639 F. App'x 397

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Inez Hunter appeals after the District Court 1 denied her motion for . post-judgment 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, 121 S.Ct. 1733, 149 L.Ed.2d 658 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm.

1 . The Honorable Patrick J. Schütz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.