Opinion
No. 06-3670.
Submitted: April 29, 2008.
Filed: May 7, 2008.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Marco Medina-Salas, Brownsville, TX, pro se.
Gillian G. O'Hara, Marcia A. Washkuhn, Kutak Rock, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]
Marco Medina-Salas appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, the Family Medical Leave Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He also challenges the court's dismissal without prejudice of his state-law claim and argues that his counsel below was ineffective.
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
After reviewing the record de novo, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to Medina-Salas, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Medina-Salas's state-law claim, see Johnson v. City of Shorewood, Minn., 360 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction where it has dismissed all original-jurisdiction claims; generally, when court eliminates all federal-law claims before trial, balance of factors to be considered under § 1367 will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims), and that Medina-Salas's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable, see Click v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (there is no statutory or constitutional right to effect assistance of counsel in civil case).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Medina-Salas's motion to supplement his appellate brief is denied.