John Pullins, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order remanding in part and dismissing with prejudice in part his claims under state law and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 action for violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Pullins contends that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over any of Pullins’s claims because they were barred by the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine, that the district court erred in denying Pullins’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, and that the district court erred in dismissing his claims because Pullins sufficiently alleged that the appellees violated his rights. After review,2 we conclude that Pullins fails to articulate any non-frivolous basis for reversal and affirm for the reasons identified in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Although we find this appeal to be frivolous, due to Pullins’s pro se status, we deny the pending motion for damages and costs under Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Woods v. IRS, 3 F.3d 403,404 (11th Cir.1993).
AFFIRMED.