Mark Kilmartin appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil *593 Procedure 60(b) motion, which he filed more than a year after the court entered an adverse final judgment, claiming that the court and his attorney had failed to notify him of the judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) (motions for relief from judgment because of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect must be made within one year); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. FAG Bearings Corp., 153 F.3d 919, 924 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review); Inman v. Am. Home Furniture Placement, Inc., 120 F.3d 117, 118-19 (8th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s refusal to set aside default judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) because litigants had relied on their attorney, who had not filed an answer to the complaint or responded to discovery requests; “[l]itigants choose counsel at their peril”); Zimmer St. Louis, Inc. v. Zimmer Co., 32 F.3d 357, 359-61 (8th Cir. 1994) (Rule 60(b)(6) may not be used to cure problems of lack of notice). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

We deny Kilmartin’s pending motions.