Matthew Suschanke appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Sus-chanke failed to state a section 1983 claim against Thomas Neske for false arrest, see Garionis v. Newton, 827 F.2d 306, 310 (8th *673 Cir. 1987) (person who is already under arrest and in police custody cannot be “rearrested”), or for either excessive force or violation of intimate-association rights, see King v. Olmsted Cnty., 117 F.3d 1065, 1067-68 (8th Cir. 1997) (mere verbal threats generally do not support § 1988 claim). Thus, Suschanke failed to state similar claims against the City of St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners (Board). See Moore v. City of Desloge, Mo., 647 F.3d 841, 849 (8th Cir. 2011) (municipal liability for failure to train or supervise cannot attach unless individual liability is first found on underlying substantive claim); Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 2009) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires showing of constitutional violation pursuant to official custom, policy, or practice of governmental entity); Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552, 559 n. 1 (8th Cir. 2008) (§ 1983 claims cannot be based on respondeat superior or vicarious liability). Having properly dismissed the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Suschanke’s state-law false-imprisonment claims against Neske and the Board. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, clarifying that the dismissal of the state-law claims is without prejudice, see Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).