[UNPUBLISHED]

Harlan Jacobsen appeals the magistrate judge’s 1 grant of defendants’ motion for relief from a 1998 preliminary injunction delineating the restrictions that defendants could enforce on Jacobsen’s placement of newsracks at Iowa highway rest areas. We affirm.

In a related case before us on appeal, Jacobsen v. Dep’t of Transp., et al, 450 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2006) (which we affirm today), the district court 2 held that the rest areas at issue are nonpublic fora, and that the present restrictions governing placement of the newsracks comply with the constitutional protection afforded nonpublic fora. In light of that holding and the constitutional restrictions with which defendants must comply in the future given the status of the rest areas as nonpublic fora, we conclude that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in dissolving the preliminary injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (court may relieve party of order if, inter alia, it is no longer equitable that judgment should have prospective relief), (b)(6) (court may relieve party from order for any non-listed reason justifying relief).

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