the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Id. 15 . Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that "district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if — ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction....” Id. 16 . Here, we acknowledge that Battle challenges our appellate jurisdiction to review the portion of the district court's order that remands the Remaining Claims to state court. We reject this challenge based upon well-settled precedent. See, e.g. Hinson, 239 F.3d at 614-15 (<HOLDING>) (reviewing, as an appealable final order,
holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal holding that an abstentionbased remand is reviewable under 28 usc  1291 as a discretionary refusal to adjudicate holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291 holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders holding remand orders not subsumed under statute barring review of remand orders based on defect in removal or on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be appealed pursuant to 28 usc  1291