
    Desiree KOLBEK; Amy Eddy; Jeannette Orlando; Nicole Farr; Summer Hagan; Jamie Rodriguez; Pebbles Rodriguez, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY HOLINESS TABERNACLE CHURCH, INC., Defendant Jeanne Estates Apartments Inc., Defendant-Appellant Sharon Alamo; Tony Alamo, also known as Bernard Hoffman, Defendants Jeanne Estates Apartments Inc., Third Party Plaintiff v. Jennifer Kolbek; Lamont Eddy; Susan Davis; Joseph Orlando; Elenora Orlando; Terry Farr; Lisa Penman; James Rodriguez; Nicole Rodriguez; Dennis Hagan; Robin Hagan; Lee King; Alaina King; Ann Nicholas, Special Administratrix of the Estate of John Kolbek, deceased, Third Party Defendants.
    
      No. 14-1359.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 19, 2014.
    Filed: Aug. 21, 2014.
    William David Carter, Sr., Mercy & Carter, Louis B. Paddock, Nix & Patterson, Texarkana, TX, Edward B. Cloutman, III, Cloutman & Cloutman, Linda M. Ded-man, Dedman Law, PLLC, Dallas, TX, Amy Rae Miller, Nix & Patterson, Daing-erfield, TX, D. Neil Smith, Nix & Patterson, Irving, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Michael Meresak, Meresak Law, LLC, John P. Rogers, Rosenblum & Schwartz, Saint Louis, MO, Noel A. Sevastianos, Sev-astianos & Associates, Clayton, MO, for Defendant.
    Megan D. Hargraves, Stuart Paul Miller, Mitchell & Williams, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this civil action, brought by several individuals who asserted both federal and state-law claims against, inter alia, Jeanne Estates Apartments, Inc. (JEA), JEA appeals the district court’s order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, after the federal claims had been dismissed. For reversal, JEA argues that it was improper for the district court to dismiss certain state-law claims without prejudice after the court had previously granted summary judgment for JEA on those claims. JEA also appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for reconsideration.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice, notwithstanding its previous decision granting partial summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, inter alia, claim raises novel or complex issue of state law, or court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction); see also Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737, 743 (8th Cir.2009) (abuse-of-discretion review standard applies to district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction); Auto Servs. Co., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, 537 F.3d 853, 856-57 (8th Cir.2008) (district court has general discretionary authority to review and revise its interlocutory rulings prior to entry of final judgment). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying JEA’s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (abuse-of-discretion review standard).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
     