Robert Prokop brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raising multiple claims in connection with a state election and a later state proceeding against him to collect late fees. The District Court 1 dismissed the complaint, and Prokop appeals. After careful de novo review, see Detroit Gen. Ret. Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 621 F.3d 800, 804-05 (8th Cir. 2010), we conclude that dismissal was proper because (1) some of the claims are barred by the Rooker-Feld-m an 2 doctrine and the District Court properly refrained from interfering in pending state-court garnishment proceedings, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); (2) the remaining allegations fail to state a claim or are time-barred; and (3) Prokop’s arguments for judicial recusal were not presented below, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to *525 consider claims first raised on appeal), and in any event, appear meritless.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.