In this civil action, brought by several individuals who asserted both federal and state-law claims against, inter alia, Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc. (JEA), JEA appeals the district court’s 1 order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, after the federal claims had been dismissed. For reversal, JEA argues that it was improper for the district court to dismiss certain state-law claims without prejudice after the court had previously granted summary judgment for JEA on those claims. JEA also appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for reconsideration.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice, notwithstanding its previous decision granting partial summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, inter alia, claim raises novel or complex issue of state law, or court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); see also Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737, 743 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review standard applies to district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction); Auto Servs. Co., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, 537 F.3d 853, 856-57 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has general discretionary authority to review and revise its interlocutory rulings prior to entry of final judgment). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying JEA’s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review standard).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.