Michael O’Grady appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing as Rooker-Feld- man 2 barred his complaint alleging wrongs stemming from his 1997 divorce, custody, and support proceedings. The dismissal order also required O’Grady to obtain permission from the Chief Judge of the Unit *148 ed States District Court of the District of Minnesota before filing in that court any future action containing similar allegations. Upon review, we find no basis for reversal. See Skit Int'l, Ltd. v. DAC Tech. of Ark., Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156-57 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits lower federal courts from exercising appellate review of state-court judgments); cf. Sassower v. Carlson, 930 F.2d 583, 584 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (enjoining vexatious litigant from filing civil actions in Minnesota district court without first obtaining leave). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.