Opinion ID: 2537247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the Dolls' Motion for Relief from Final Judgment and subsequent Motion to Set Aside Order.

Text: ¶ 15. This issue is not time-barred as Rule 60(b) specifies certain limited grounds upon which final judgments may be attacked, even after the normal procedures of motion for new trial and appeal are no longer available. Miss. R. Civ. P. 60 cmt. However, [w]e will reverse the grant or denial of a Rule 60(b) motion only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. Moore v. Jacobs, 752 So.2d 1013, 1015 (Miss.1999). ¶ 16. Under the facts presented, Rule 60(b) relief is unwarranted. Rule 60(b) is not an escape hatch for litigants who have procedural opportunities afforded under other rules and who without cause failed to pursue those procedural remedies. Pruett, 767 So.2d at 986 (quoting State ex rel. Miss. Bureau of Narcotics v. One (1) Chevrolet Nova Auto., 573 So.2d 787, 790 (Miss.1990)). See also M.A.S. v. Miss. Dep't of Human Servs., 842 So.2d 527, 530 (Miss.2003) (quoting Briney v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 714 So.2d 962, 968 (Miss.1998)) (the Rule 60(b) motion is not to be used as a substitute for appeal....). Based upon the conclusions in Issues I and II, supra, the Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) relief sought by the Dolls is nothing more than an escape hatch after failing to pursue other available procedural remedies, and/or an improper substitute for appeal. M.A.S., 842 So.2d at 530; Pruett, 767 So.2d at 986. The Dolls should have appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit on or before March 25, 2009, but failed to do so. Similarly, the Dolls should have sought this Court's review of the circuit court's silence on their Motion for Recusal, but failed to timely do so. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Dolls' Motion for Relief from Final Judgment and subsequent Motion to Set Aside Order.