United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 00-1443 ___________

Milton Kenneth Williams, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: October 4, 2000 Filed: October 12, 2000 ___________

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Milton Kenneth Williams appeals the district court’s1 order denying his “Motion for Stay as a Matter of Law with Alternative Demand for a Jury Trial” and “Amended Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . and Amended Motion to Reinstate and Strike.” Williams’s motions were not timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

1 The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 59(e), nor did they set forth any of the enumerated grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)-(6). Even if his motions could be construed as Rule 60(b) motions, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying them. See Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540, 545 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 324 (1999); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) (standard of review). Finally, we note that Williams has timely appealed only the denial of these motions. See Sanders, 862 F.2d at 169 (“appeal from the denial of a motion made under Rule 60(b) does not raise the underlying judgment for review”).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-