Opinion ID: 805668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying the motion to dismiss Count 1 of Anderson’s complaint is reversed. Having thus concluded all of Anderson’s federal claims should have been dismissed, we decline to address the officers’ second claim of error concerning Anderson’s state tort claims. Instead, on remand, the district court should consider whether to dismiss those -11- claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 349–50 (1988). ENTERED FOR THE COURT Michael R. Murphy