Stephen Wayne Carlson appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of his civil complaints, in which he asserted a variety of federal and state-law claims based on events that occurred in connection with his ownership of a condominium unit and related foreclosure proceedings. The district court also imposed certain pre-filing restrictions on Carlson, which he challenges in this appeal as well. Several ap-pellees have filed cross-appeals arguing that the majority of Carlson’s claims should have been dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Carlson’s complaints for the reasons that the court expressed, and also did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, although we modify the dismissal of those claims to be without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 1998). As to the cross-appeals, we conclude that defendants *596 were not aggrieved by the district court’s judgment, and thus lack standing to appeal. We therefore dismiss those appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Northshore Min. Co., 576 F.3d 840, 846 (8th Cir. 2009). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing filing restrictions, also for the reasons explained by the court.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we dismiss the cross-appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.