Case ID: f-appx_425/html/0524-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John HOWELL, Appellant, v. Carl A. REDUS, Individually and as Mayor of the City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Appellee, Irene Holcomb; Thelma Walker; Wayne Easterly; Charles Boyd; Bill Bru-mett; Glen Brown; Janice L. Roberts; George Stepps, Defendants, City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Appellee.
    No. 11-1081.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 3, 2011.
    Filed: Aug. 12, 2011.
    James Gerard Schulze, Baker & Schul-ze, Little Rock, AR, Morgan E. Welch, Welch & Brewer, argued, North Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.
    Brad A. Cazort, Cazort Law Firm, argued, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.
    Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this employment-discrimination action, John Howell appeals from the order of the District Court granting summary judgment to Carl Redus and Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on Howell’s federal claims and dismissing without prejudice his pendent state-law claims.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the District Court’s summary judgment decision was proper. See Tus-ing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507, 514 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review); Rothmeier v. Inv. Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328, 1336-37 (8th Cir.1996) (explaining the evidence necessary for a plaintiff to avoid summary judgment in an age-discrimination case and affirming summary judgment where the evidence showed that the employer’s problems with the plaintiff concerned business matters, not the plaintiffs age); see also Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co., 507 F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (8th Cir.2007) (noting that direct evidence of discrimination must show a link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the employment decision; direct evidence does not include statements made by decision-makers that are not related to the deci-sional process). We further conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Howell’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); Moots v. Lombardi, 453 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 
      
      . The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.