Mary Amerson sued the City of Des Moines in Iowa state court, claiming in part that the City’s enforcement of its nuisance ordinances was discriminatory and unconstitutional and that various City officials had caused damage to or the loss of her real estate and vehicles, had committed illegal searches and seizures, had *399 defamed her character, and had conducted an unfair administrative hearing. After the City removed the action to federal court, the district court 1 denied Amerson’s motion to remand because it was untimely and because Amerson had claimed violations of her federal constitutional rights. The court later granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, denied Amerson’s motion to alter or amend judgment, and denied her related motion to strike. She appeals all those rulings.

Following careful review, we conclude that the motion to remand was properly denied as untimely, see Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund A v. CVS Caremark Corp., 636 F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir. 2011), and that the grant of summary judgment was proper, see Rau v. Roberts, 640 F.3d 324, 327 (8th Cir. 2011). We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to alter or amend judgment, see Sipp v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 975, 980-81 (8th Cir. 2011), and no error in the denial of the motion to strike the City’s timely response. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.