¶1 Kidane Shulbe appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint, in which he sought relief from an order entered in a state-court case and he sought damages for injuries allegedly resulting from that order. He has also filed in this court a motion seeking the removal of judges who were involved in the state-court proceedings. The district court dismissed Shulbe’s complaint without prejudice upon concluding that, under the Rook-er-Feldman 2 doctrine, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Upon careful review of the record and Shulbe’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. See Minch Family LLLP. v. Buffalo-Red, River Watershed Dist., 628 F.3d 960, 965 (8th Cir.2010) (de novo standard of review); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (if court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, court must dismiss action); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Shulbe’s pending motion.
¶3 . See D.C. Ct.App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).