Randall Brian Jarvis (Jarvis) appeals the district court’s 1 order granting the government a default judgment against him for a permanent injunction. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. See Forsythe v. Hales, 255 F.3d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). Jarvis failed to respond to the complaint; thereafter, in violation of court rules, he attempted to submit by facsimile his response to the government’s motion for a default order, and then did not cure the problem by submitting a proper filing after the court informed him that his fae *78 simile would not be accepted; and he did not respond to the court’s two show-cause orders. Jarvis’s arguments on the merits are thus irrelevant. See Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1996); Brown v. Kenron Aluminum, & Glass Corp., 477 F.2d 526, 531 (8th Cir. 1973).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.