PER CURIAM. Denise and Jonathan Chapman appeal following the district court’s adverse rulings in their suit against Ford Motor Company. The action, removed from state court based on diversity jurisdiction, purported to seek relief pursuant to Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 60(
c) and (
k) based on assertions that Ford Motor Company presented fraudulent evidence in an earlier case. The district court granted Ford Motor Company’s motion for
summary judgment, and denied the Chapmans’ subsequent motions to alter or amend judgment, and for reconsideration. Following careful review, we find no error or abuse of discretion. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(c),(k); Stein v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 662 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir.2011) (de novo review of grant of
summary judgment); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168-69 (8th Cir.1988) (standard of review for post-judgment rulings). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny the parties’ pending motions. . The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.