[UNPUBLISHED]

Danna Johnson appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal of her pro se civil complaint for failure to state a claim. Upon de novo review, see Farm Credit Servs. of Am. v. Am. State Bank, 339 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2003) (de novo standard of review), we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Johnson’s complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, see Basham v. Fin. Am. Corp., 583 F.2d 918, 927 (7th Cir. 1978) (failure to bring action under TILA within one year bars action). We decline to consider Johnson’s claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to address pro se claims and arguments raised first on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.