limitations. See Lovett, 327 F.3d at 1182; see also O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33. The events in Fortson’s federal complaint occurred in April 2011, when his state complaint was dismissed. Fortson knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to his federal claims at the time his state complaint was dismissed; therefore, the limitations period began to run in April 2011. See Lovett, 327 F.3d at 1182. Nonetheless, he did not file his federal complaint until January 2014, nearly three years later, after the limitations period had expired. See id. To the extent Fortson requested the district judge to void any state judgments, his claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm dismissal of
holding rookerfeldman doctrine deprived district court of jurisdiction to review decision of west virginia state bar holding the rookerfeldman doctrine bars cases brought by statecourt losers complaining of injuries caused by statecourt judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff holding that rookerfeldman bars subject matter jurisdiction where but for the statecourt judgment the plaintiff would have no claim holding rookerfeldman also bars federal claims raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the statecourt judgment