Joeffre Kolosky appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil action. Upon this court’s de novo review, we conclude dismissal was proper for the reasons given by the district court. See Banks v. Int’l Union Elec. Workers, 390 F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo review of dismissal for res judicata); Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp., 50 F.3d 502, 504 (8th Cir. 1995) (same; dismissal for Eleventh Amendment immunity). We also conclude that the imposition of filing restrictions on Kolosky was warranted, see In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1290-95 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kolosky’s motion to reconsider, see Arnold, v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001); Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998).

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