it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction^]’ ” Muller v. Culbertson, 408 Fed.Appx. 194, 197 (10th Cir.2011) (unpublished). As the Court has, dismissed Young’s federal claims, only the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims remain. Given the Supreme Court’s and the Tenth Circuit’s guidance, the Court would normally remand those claims to state court. To give the Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the Complaint to add federal claims against Dear and any other individuals, however, the Court will not remand the state-law claims to state court at this point. The Court has conducted its own independent research and concludes that it has jurisdiction to allow such a motion. See Henderson v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 412 Fed.Appx. 74, 78-79 (10th Cir.2011) (unpublished)(<HOLDING>); New Mexico v. Gen. Elec. Co., 467 F.3d 1223,
holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 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 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 exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim holding that a district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs statelaw claims after dismissing the plaintiffs federal claims and did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand the case to state court