In this case involving default on student loans, Ray Bright, appealing pro se, challenges, inter alia, the denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). In its Order and Reasons, the district court carefully explained that it was denying Rule 60 relief, but only without prejudice, because it was premature. The discharge of indebtedness that Bright had been granted, was conditional in that it “will be reinstated if you do not meet certain requirements during a post-discharge monitoring period ... for three years from ... June 28, 2012.” The court also explained why Bright was not entitled to have his record sealed — a denial of which he also complains on appeal — because he had not complied with the applicable local rules regarding sealing.

The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.