context: It is undisputed that no separate jurisdictional basis for these claims exists in this case. Because the court finds dismissal appropriate with respect to each of plaintiffs' claims arising under federal law, the court declines to exercise its discretion to address the merits of plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 997 F.2d 712, 717
citation_a.parenthetical: in light of Tenth Circuit's affir-mance of district court's dismissal of plaintiffs "jurisdietionally predicate" federal claims under SS 1983, dismissal of plaintiffs pendent state law claims appropriate
citation_a.sentence: See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Smith v. City of Enid, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir.1998) (“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.”); see also Pride v. Does, 997 F.2d 712, 717 (10th Cir.1993) (in light of Tenth Circuit’s affir-mance of district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs “jurisdietionally predicate” federal claims under § 1983, dismissal of plaintiffs pendent state law claims appropriate).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 149 F.3d 1151, 1156
citation_b.parenthetical: "When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims."
citation_b.sentence: See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Smith v. City of Enid, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir.1998) (“When all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.”); see also Pride v. Does, 997 F.2d 712, 717 (10th Cir.1993) (in light of Tenth Circuit’s affir-mance of district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs “jurisdietionally predicate” federal claims under § 1983, dismissal of plaintiffs pendent state law claims appropriate).