AFL-CIO v. University of Alabama, supra. Ordinarily, this court would want to hear more of the matter. However, since this court has held that this case must be dismissed for plaintiffs failure to file this action within the requisite time period, the court need not reach this issue. Finally, this court also dismisses plaintiffs state law claim of misrepresentation. Having dismissed all of plaintiffs federal law claims, this court opts not to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim. See Noble v. White, 996 F.2d 797, 799 (5th Cir.1993) (stating that “[district courts enjoy wide discretion in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim once all federal claims are dismissed.”); Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d 386, 395 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). So, for the reasons set forth above, this
holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims holding that after all federal claims had been dismissed if the district court does decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction these state claims shall be remanded to state court rather than dismissed because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court holding that district courts dismissal of state law claims was proper where the district court had properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction holding that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction