MEMORANDUM

Leslie R. Howard appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging that defendant’s debt collection efforts violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and an Arizona statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and a summary judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment under the Rooker-Feld-man doctrine because Howard’s action amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a state court judgment. Id. at 1163-65 (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609 , 616 (9th Cir.2007) (Rooker-Feld-man doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief he sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

We treat the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2004) (dismissals under Rooker-Feldman are for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir.2004) (dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice).

Howard’s contentions concerning the district court’s denial of his motion to strike Jennifer Ache’s declaration are unpersuasive. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808 , 813 (9th Cir.2002) (“We review for abuse of discretion evidentiary rulings made in the context of summary judgment.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.