Brian Collum appeals after the district court 1 dismissed his complaint without prejudice, and denied his numerous post-judgment motions. Upon careful review, we first conclude that Collum’s notice of appeal (NOA) was timely only as to the district court’s final postjudgment order, which essentially denied him relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and imposed certain restrictions on Collum’s future filings in the district court. See Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (30 days to file *612 NOA in civil case), (a)(4)(A)(vi) (time to file appeal runs for all parties from entry of order disposing of motion for relief under Rule 60 if motion is filed no later than 28 days after judgment is entered). We further find no reason to disturb the district court’s final postjudgment order. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1988) (review of denial of Rule 60(b) motion presents only question whether district court abused its discretion in denying relief from judgment; if movant fails to present reasons not previously considered by district court, that alone is controlling factor against granting motion); cf. In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1290-91, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (endorsing proposition that court may impose reasonable restrictions that limit or place conditions upon future filings). We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.