Kurt Ponzar appeals from the district court’s 1 order dismissing the federal claims in his removed civil complaint, upon motion by defendants, and remanding the state law claims to state court. On appeal, Ponzar raises only one issue: whether the district court properly dismissed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that was raised in his complaint. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Minn. Majority v. Mansky, 708 F.3d 1051, 1055 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review), we conclude that the claim was properly dismissed because Ponzar failed to allege facts which would support a conclusion that defendants — private attorneys — acted under color of state law while representing their client, a lender, in judicial proceedings against Ponzar. See Carlson v. Roetzel & Andress, 552 F.3d 648, 650-51 (8th Cir. 2008). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.