Collin Myrlie appeals from the order of the District Court 1 denying his motion filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking relief from the adverse grant of summary judgment on his complaint against the mortgage company and bank involved in the foreclosure sale of his home. Following careful review, we see no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s conclusion that Myrlie did not *648 present newly discovered evidence or exceptional circumstances warranting relief. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 975, 122 S.Ct. 400, 151 L.Ed.2d 304 (2001); see also Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Relief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) only where exceptional circumstances have denied the moving party a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented the moving party from receiving adequate redress.”); Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1536-37 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that where Rule 60(b)(2) relief was sought based on evidence discovered after a hearing on a summary judgment motion but before the court granted the motion, a party must have a justifiable excuse for not timely opposing the motion for summary judgment and must show that the evidence probably would have produced a different result).

Accordingly, we affirm.