Opinion ID: 2979865
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tennessee Human Rights Act claims.

Text: The district court’s without-prejudice dismissal of Brown’s Tennessee Human Rights Act claims was also proper, notwithstanding some problematic jurisdictional language used in justifying the dismissal. The district court undoubtedly had discretion to dismiss these state-law claims once summary judgment had been granted on all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). By doing so, the district court did not adjudicate the merits of these state-law claims. Brown, however, argues the merits of his Tennessee Human Rights Act claims (albeit in an extremely conclusory fashion). He does not argue that the district court’s dismissal of the state-law claims was improper even if the Title VII claims were properly dismissed. That being the case, because we uphold the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to Brown’s Title VII claims, we also uphold the court’s without-prejudice dismissal of Brown’s Tennessee Human Rights Act claims. Brown is free to pursue the latter claims in state court, if he so desires, and if such claims can be timely brought. The district court’s judgment is affirmed. 11