Ole Savior appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1033 (8th Cir. 1997) (de novo review), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1137, 118 S.Ct. 1839, 140 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1998), we agree with the district court that Savior failed to allege how any named defendant violated his constitutional or other federal rights. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice Savior’s pendent state-law claims. See Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 968, 117 S.Ct. 395, 136 L.Ed.2d 310 (1996).

*561 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.