Robert E. SANFORD, Appellant, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; Robert P. Houston, Director of Correctional Services; Fred Britten, Warden at the Tecumseh State Corr. Inst.; Unknown Sherman, Unit Manager of SMU at Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. et al., Appellees, 392 F. App'x 507

PER CURIAM. Nebraska inmate Robert E. Sanford appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal without prejudice of his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Following de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam), we conclude that Sanford’s federal due-process claim was properly dismissed, because it was based on his placement in administrative segregation, which did not amount to an atypical and significant hardship. See Orr v. Larkins, 610 F.3d 1032, 1034 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam).

We also find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sanford’s remaining state-law claim. See Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 342 (8th Cir.2005). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. . The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.