At issue is a 29 August 2003 final judgment. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), the district court dismissed Price’s claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(d). Price’s mari *286 time law claim was dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The district court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Price’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. 1441(c)(2004); they were dismissed without prejudice.

Price’s 24 September 2008 notice of appeal from the 29 August 2008 final judgment does not include the 29 October 2003 denial of Price’s 8 September 2003 Rule 59(a) “Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (New Trial) and Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings”. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Therefore, as stated, only the 29 August 2003 final judgment is at issue.

For essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion, entered 29 August 2003, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.