Todd McClaskey appeals the district court’s 1 November 7, 2006 order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and dismissing with prejudice his claims against the La Plata R-ll School District, its School Board, and certain school board members and school administrators (School Defendants) arising out of his allegations that his constitutional rights were violated when he attempted to speak out at school board meetings regarding alleged racial harassment of his daughter at school. In prior orders, the district court had disposed of McClaskey’s claims against the United States Department of Education and various federal officers (Federal Defendants), and the City of LaPlata and one of its police officers (City Defendants).

We note that McClaskey’s notice of appeal specifically designated only the district court’s November 7 order enforcing the settlement agreement and dismissing the claims against the School Defendants, and we therefore conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s prior orders. See Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 207-08 (8th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we dismiss from this appeal all of the Federal Defendants and the City Defendants to the extent they have continued to participate in the litigation.

The settlement agreement at issue was negotiated by McClaskey and several of the School Defendants with the assistance of a court-appointed mediator, and it was reduced to writing and signed by McClaskey and all of the School Defendants. The district court determined that a binding settlement agreement existed between McClaskey and all of the School Defendants, notwithstanding the fact that some of the School Defendants signed the agreement after the mediation deadline had expired. Upon review, we conclude that the district court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. See Chaganti & Assocs. v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir. 2006) (clear error standard of review; setting forth essential elements of valid settlement agreement under Missouri law), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2977, 168 L.Ed.2d 704 (2007). Accordingly, the district court’s November 7 order is affirmed, the judgment is affirmed, and all pending motions are denied.