Rufino Villarreal challenges the district court’s 1 dismissal of his second amended complaint. After careful de novo review, see Riehm v. Engelking, 538 F.3d 952, 964 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), we conclude the district court correctly dismissed the case without prejudice. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84, 287 n. 2, 292 n. 8, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (.Rooker-Feldman doctrine recognizes federal district courts lack jurisdiction to hear federal non-habeas actions “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (recognizing longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings).

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