Teresa Bloodman appeals the district court’s 1 with-prejudice dismissal of her civil complaint. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that abstention would be appropriate under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 892-93 (8th Cir. 2010) (Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction when (1) there is ongoing state proceeding, (2) which implicates important state interests, and (3) there is adequate opportunity to raise relevant federal questions in state proceeding). Accordingly, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Anderson v. Schultz, 871 F.2d 762, 766 (8th Cir. 1989) (dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where court abstains under Younger), and affirm the dismissal as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.