Salina Amey and her minor children, Johnathon and Christapher Amey, appeal from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their civil rights actions arising out of the named defendants’ involvement with Amey during a period of time when she was allowed only supervised visitation with Johnathon and Christapher.

After de novo review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. The various claims raised are either barred by the Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine, or fail under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity. See Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 436, 113 S.Ct. 2167, 124 L.Ed.2d 391 (1993); Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222 F.3d 488, 492-93 (8th Cir. 2000) ; Dunham, v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1010 (8th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 819, 121 S.Ct. 60, 148 L.Ed.2d 26 (2000); Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 982-83 (8th Cir. 1995); Robinson v. Freeze, 15 F.3d 107, 108 (8th Cir. 1994); Myers v. Price, 463 N.W.2d 773, 775-76 (Minn.Ct.App. 1990). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant equitable relief, see Sterling v. Calvin, 874 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), or in denying leave to amend, see Roberson v. Hayti Police Dep’t, 241 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2001) .

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.