Arthur Heim appeals after the district court 1 dismissed his complaint and denied *635 his numerous post-judgment motions. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review only the district court’s orders which (1) denied two post-judgment motions and restricted Heim from filing additional post-judgment motions, and (2) required him to pay the appellate filing fee or to file an in forma pauperis motion. See Dieser v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 928 (8th Cir. 2006) (timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). We further conclude that neither of those two orders is subject to reversal. See In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2007) (denial of post-judgment motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion); In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (court has discretion to place reasonable restrictions on litigant who files non-meritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process); see also Fed. R.App. P. 3(e) (upon filing of notice of appeal, appellant must pay district clerk all required fees). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny all of Heim’s pending motions.