Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy C. WASHINGTON, etc., Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-10
Citations: 211 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 06-1476
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy C. WASHINGTON, etc., Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 211
Pages: 550–550

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy C. WASHINGTON, etc., Appellant.
No. 06-1476.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 27, 2006.
Filed: Jan. 10, 2007.
Sara Elizabeth Fullerton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Appellee.
Timothy C. Washington, Florence, CO, pro se.
Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Washington appeals the district court's dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 2001 order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. As the district court concluded — and contrary to Washington's position — his motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion filed without authorization. Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2647-48, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). (Rule 60(b) motion should not be treated as successive habeas motion if it attacks district court's previous resolution of claim on procedural grounds); United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, dismissal was proper. See Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.