Iowa resident James Neuman appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his pro se complaint, in which he alleged numerous irregularities arising out of his February 2014 arrest on suspicion of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and the subsequent court proceedings. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that dismissal was proper because the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 2 see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005); see also Skit Int’l, Ltd. v. DAC Techs. of Ark., Inc., 487 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); and, in any event, Neuman failed to state a claim against the named defendants, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of review). We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over numerous state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Elmore v. Harbor Brand Freight Tools USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review), cert. denied, 2017 WL 2869943 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2017) (No. 17-22).

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