PER CURIAM: Eric Gant appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(
B) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional state court rulings against him. As the district court determined, Gant’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995); Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994).
Gant’s conclusional assertion that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to his case because any ruling in his favor would not affect any state court rulings is patently without merit; the face of his complaint sought reversal of the state court rulings and the entry of judgment in his favor in the challenged state court case. Because the appeal raises no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cíe. R. 42.2. We caution Gant that the filing or prosecution of frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions.
Gant should review all pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).