In 2010, Nadia Jackson brought this housing-discrimination complaint alleging that her housing assistance was terminated without justification, and that appellee was not complying with federal regulations. She claimed violations of her constitutional rights, state law, and federal law. The district court 1 granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Jackson’s complaint raised matters that were reviewable only in the state court of appeals, or were barred by res judicata based on prior state-court litigation in Minnesota. This appeal followed. Jackson also moves to file an amended brief, and to remand for lack of jurisdiction.

After careful de novo review of the record, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review), we conclude — for the reasons explained in the district court’s opinion — that the complaint raises claims as to which judicial review is available only in the state court of appeals through a writ of certiora-ri, and that the remainder of the complaint is barred by res judicata, see David v. Tanksley, 218 F.3d 928, 930 (8th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of district court’s interpre *587 tation of state law); Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 220 (Minn. 2007) (elements of res judicata); Dietz v. Dodge Cnty., 487 N.W.2d 237, 239 (Minn. 1992) (judicial review of quasi-judicial decisions is through writ of certiorari to Minnesota Court of Appeals). We also reject Jackson’s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate her complaint, see 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1) (party may commence civil action in United States district court alleging discriminatory housing practice), and we conclude that her other arguments on appeal are without merit. Jackson’s allegations of professional misconduct by appellee’s attorney are totally without merit.

Accordingly, we deny her pending motions, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.