Michael Harasyn appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of his pro se complaint claiming his rights were violated in prior *608 divorce and child-custody proceedings in state court. Upon consideration of Hara-syn’s arguments on appeal, and upon careful de novo review of the district court’s dismissal, see Edwards v. City of Jonesboro, 645 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 2011), we agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), and we find nothing improper in the proceedings below, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Minn. Majority v. Manksy, 708 F.3d 1051, 1056 (8th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.