
    Todd C. BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    15-4020
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    October 18, 2016
    FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Todd C. Bank, pro se, Kew Gardens, NY.
    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: David J. Fioccola, Adam J. Hunt, Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY; James R. Sigel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA; Joseph R. Palmore, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC.
    FOR AMICUS CURIAE Judith Ferren-bach: Andrea Bierstein, Mitchell Breit, Simmons Hanly Conroy, New York, NY.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges, JANE A. RESTANI, Judge.
    
    
      
       Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Todd C. Bank, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

On this appeal, appellant contends that the district court erred in dismissing both his claim under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as well as his claim under New York General Business Law (GBL) § 399-p. We disagree.

We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, accepting as true all factual claims in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 740-41 (2d Cir. 2013) (per cu-riam).

As to appellant’s TCPA claim, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion.

We also affirm the dismissal, without prejudice, of appellant’s claim under the New York GBL. Having dismissed appellant’s only federal claim, the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state-law claim. See Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y v. Madison Cty., 665 F.3d 408, 436-37 (2d Cir. 2011). Because there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction over appellant’s GBL claim, the district court’s dismissal was proper.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  