Case Name: Inez HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, in Dearborn MI; Citi Financial Auto, ("CFA") a corporation in Bedford, TX; Hastings Automotive Inc., ("HAI"), in Hastings, MN; Dion Carpenter, an individual; Doug Ericksen, an individual; John Does, I through X, sued in their individual and official capacities whose identities are not yet known, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-04
Citations: 639 F. App'x 397
Docket Number: No. 16-1042
Parties: Inez HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, in Dearborn MI; Citi Financial Auto, ("CFA") a corporation in Bedford, TX; Hastings Automotive Inc., ("HAI"), in Hastings, MN; Dion Carpenter, an individual; Doug Ericksen, an individual; John Does, I through X, sued in their individual and official capacities whose identities are not yet known, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 397–397

Head Matter:
Inez HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, in Dearborn MI; Citi Financial Auto, ("CFA") a corporation in Bedford, TX; Hastings Automotive Inc., ("HAI"), in Hastings, MN; Dion Carpenter, an individual; Doug Ericksen, an individual; John Does, I through X, sued in their individual and official capacities whose identities are not yet known, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-1042.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 2, 2016.
Filed: May 4, 2016.
Inez Hunter, Saint Paul, MN, pro se.
Vernle Charles Durocher, Jr., Angela Maryssa Porter, Dorsey & Whitney, Joy Anderson, Gray & Plant, Minneapolis, MN, Lucia Nale, Mayer & Brown, Chicago, IL, Mark Lee Scholle, Scholle Law Firm, Eden Prairie, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Inez Hunter appeals after the District Court 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.
. The Honorable Patrick J. Schütz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.