Tynisha Reinerio appeals after the district court 1 dismissed her complaint. On appeal, she argues that the district court erred by denying her motion for remand because it lacked jurisdiction, by dismissing her claims, and by denying motions to compel discovery. Reinerio also files motions to, exclude certain evidence from the appellate record.

First, upon de novo review, we conclude that' removal was proper. See Block v. Toyota Motor Corp., 665 F.3d 944, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review; describing fraudulent joinder standard). Second, we find no - reason to reverse the dismissal order, as Reinerio failed to allege sufficient facts in her amended complaint to state a claim. See Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel, 571 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (pleading that offers labels and conclusions, formulaic recitation of elements of cause of action, or tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice). Third, we conclude that the district court did not grossly abuse its discretion by denying Reinerio’s discovery motions. See Roberts v. Shawnee Mission Ford, Inc. 352 F.3d 358, 360 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review).

In conclusion, we deny Reinerio’s motions, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (listing items that constitute record on appeal, including original papers and exhibits filed in *670 district court), and we affirm, see 8th Cir. R.47B.