SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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 plaintiff's favor. Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 740-41 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

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.