UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Timothy C. WASHINGTON, etc., Appellant, 211 F. App'x 550

PER CURIAM. Timothy Washington appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(

b) motion challenging a 2001 order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. As the district court concluded — and contrary to Washington’s position — his motion was in reality a successive

section 2255 motion filed without authorization. Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2647-48, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). (Rule 60(

b) motion should not be treated as successive habeas motion if it attacks district court’s previous resolution of claim on procedural grounds); United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, dismissal was proper. See Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. . The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.