James E. Horvath appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo review, see Charchenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 982-83 (8th Cir. 1995), we affirm because Horvath’s claims were barred either by *633the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., — U.S. -, -, - & n. 8, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1523, 1526 & n. 8, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine recognizes that with the exception of habeas corpus petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not allow district courts appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments), or by res judicata, see id. at 1527 (federal court has to give same preclusive effect to a state-court judgment as another court of that State would give); Wells v. Ark. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 272 Ark. 481, 616 S.W.2d 718, 719 (1981) (elements of res judicata). See 8th Cir. R. 47B.