The motion of appellee Faysound Limited for leave to file a reply is granted, and the Clerk is directed to file the reply.
We have before us appellee’s Motion for Summary Disposition. Neither the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure nor the Local Rules of this Court expressly recognize such a motion. Eighth Cir.R. 47A(b), to which Faysound’s Motion refers, has to do with motions to dismiss appeals on jurisdictional grounds. There is no doubt of our jurisdiction over this appeal. The point of Faysound’s motion is that the order from which the appeal is taken is so clearly correct that it should be summarily affirmed. Normally such motions by ap-pellees are not entertained, because the time and effort required to decide them tend to approach the time and effort required to decide the appeal itself after full briefing. In other words, we do not believe that motions by appellees for summary disposition should be allowed, as a matter of practice, to replace briefs of appellees. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Disposition is denied.
Under our Rule 47A(a), however, “[t]he court on its own motion may summarily dispose of any appeal_” The rule further provides: “The court may affirm or reverse when the questions presented do not require further consideration.”
Having read the submissions of both parties with respect to the Motion for Summary Disposition, we choose to proceed under Rule 47A(a). The parties’ contentions with respect to the availability of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) in the present circumstances have been fully ventilated. For this reason, “the questions presented do not require further consideration.” The principal obstacle to Fuller’s position is this Court’s opinion in
Kansas City Southern Ry. v. Great Lakes Carbon Corp.,
Accordingly, Great Lakes compels us to hold that the District Court was without *982 authority to reach Fuller’s jurisdictional contention in a Rule 60(b)(4) proceeding. The order of the District Court denying Fuller’s motion under this Rule is
Affirmed.