In this employment-discrimination action, John Howell appeals from the order of the District Court 1 granting summary judgment to Carl Redus and Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on Howell’s federal claims and dismissing without prejudice his pendent state-law claims.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the District Court’s summary judgment decision was proper. See Tus-ing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507, 514 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review); Rothmeier v. Inv. Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328, 1336-37 (8th Cir. 1996) (explaining the evidence necessary for a plaintiff to avoid summary judgment in an age-discrimination case and affirming summary judgment where the evidence showed that the employer’s problems with the plaintiff concerned business matters, not the plaintiffs age); see also Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co., 507 F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that direct evidence of discrimination must show a link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the employment decision; direct evidence does not include statements made by decision-makers that are not related to the deci-sional process). We further conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Howell’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); Moots v. Lombardi, 453 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.