Morley

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher and Arden Morley (the “Morleys”) appeal the magistrate judge’s rejection of their Motion for Entry of Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) in Favor of Lorre and James O. Smith (the “Smiths”), and their Motion to Correct *102 Nunc Pro Tunc the court clerk’s June 27, 2007 Rule 58 judgment, or set it aside pursuant to Rules 60(a) and 60(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c)(3). We affirm.

1. The magistrate judge properly rejected the Morleys’ Rule 60 motion. Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60 are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004); SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939 , 942 (9th Cir.2001); American Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. North American Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892 , 899 (9th Cir.2001).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a) provides that “[e]very judgment ... must be set forth on a separate document.” The rule is designed to set forth a proper date for calculating an appeal’s timeliness. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007). In order…