Arkansas inmate Kiara Smith appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Smith’s claims following an evi-dentiary hearing, see Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir. 1995) (de novo review), or in denying Smith leave to amend his complaint to add state law claims of outrage and civil conspiracy, see In re Ktel Int’l, Inc. Sec. Litig., 300 F.3d 881, 899 (8th Cir. 2002) (de novo review where denial of leave to amend is based on failure of amended complaint to state a claim). Because the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law medical malpractice claim, however, dismissal of that claim should have been without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we modify dismissal of the state law medical malpractice claim to be without prejudice. We also deny Smith’s pending motion.