Court Opinion

ID: 4021829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-08-04 15:01:03.57812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:00.851516
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 16-1726
                         ___________________________

                                   Frederick Smith,

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                            v.

          Rick G. McKelvey, Officer; Arkansas State Police Department,

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: August 1, 2016
                              Filed: August 4, 2016
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Frederick Smith appeals district court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) dismissal,
without prejudice, of his pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Smith

      1
        The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
also sought to bring claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act; under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; and under Arkansas law.

       Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.
2000) (per curiam), we conclude that all of Smith’s federal claims were subject to
dismissal, see Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553, 557-58 (2000); Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); Jones v. Frost, 770 F.3d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir.
2014), and that the district court was warranted in declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Smith’s state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                         ______________________________

                                         -2-