Azam Ansari v. NCS Pearson, Inc. , 407 F. App'x 984 ( 2011 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3176
___________
Azam Ansari, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minneapolis.
NCS Pearson, Inc., doing business *
as Pearson VUE; American Board of * [UNPUBLISHED]
Internal Medicine, a nonprofit *
organization; *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: February 1, 2011
Filed: February 3, 2011
___________
Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Azam Ansari appeals the district court’s1 order denying his Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) motion following the dismissal of his diversity action. We find
no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief under Rule 60(b)(3) and (6). See Murphy
1
The Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent
of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrs., 506 F.3d 1111, 1117 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); see
also Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 60(b) is not vehicle for
simply rearguing merits, and appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion does not
present underlying judgment for review; Rule 60(b) movant must demonstrate
exceptional circumstances justifying relief). We also agree with the district court that
Ansari was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(4). See Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d
785, 799 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo standard of review); Hunter v. Underwood, 362
F.3d 468, 476 (8th Cir. 2004) (neither Rule 60(b)(4) nor Rule 60(b)(6) motion may
be used as substitute for timely appeal). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.
47B.
______________________________
-2-