Case Name: Nadezhda V. WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sergey KAPUSTIN; Irina Kapustina; Mikhail Goloverya; Global Auto, Inc.; G Auto Sales, Inc.; Effect Auto Sales, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-12
Citations: 628 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 14-2996
Parties: Nadezhda V. WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sergey KAPUSTIN; Irina Kapustina; Mikhail Goloverya; Global Auto, Inc.; G Auto Sales, Inc.; Effect Auto Sales, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 628
Pages: 458–458

Head Matter:
Nadezhda V. WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sergey KAPUSTIN; Irina Kapustina; Mikhail Goloverya; Global Auto, Inc.; G Auto Sales, Inc.; Effect Auto Sales, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-2996.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 24, 2015.-
Filed Jan. 12, 2016.
Nadezhda V. Wood, Columbus, OH, pro se.
Sergey Kapustin, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.
Irina Kapustina, Warminster, PA, pro se.
Mikhail Goloverya, pro se.
Barry J. Roy, Rabinowitz & Lubetkin, Livingston, NJ, Global Auto, Inc., for Defendants-Appellees.
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Nadezhda Wood appeals after the District Court dismissed her action because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and then denied her motion- to alter or amend the judgment. After careful de novo review, we conclude that dismissal was proper. See Walden v. Fiore, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121-23, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (discussing personal jurisdiction). Additionally, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wood's motion to alter or amend the judgment. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion and noting that such a motion cannot be used to introduce new evidence which could have been offered prior to the entry of judgment).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.