titled and because he subsequently made his intent explicitly clear, we find that the district court erred in construing his filing as a § 1983 complaint. Accordingly, we modify the district court’s dismissal to show that the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the dismissal as modified. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED. * See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) (explaining that a federal district court has no authority to review state court judgments); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923)
holding that the circuit courts have no appellate jurisdiction over a general district courts review of an administrative license suspension in the absence of any statutory authority vesting them with such jurisdiction holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin a tax lien holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding appellate courts have jurisdiction over the district courts orders rejecting as a matter of law qualified immunity raised in a motion to dismiss