United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 13-2382
                        ___________________________

                                  Adrian L. Dunn

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                           v.

 Michael B. Mattivi, Probation Officer; John 1 Doe, Federal Agent; John 2 Doe,
                                Federal Agent

                     lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                      ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: October 18, 2013
                             Filed: October 23, 2013
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Federal inmate Adrian L. Dunn, Sr. appeals the district court’s1 pre-service
dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se action brought under Bivens v. Six

      1
       The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
Unknown Named Agents, 

, 389 (1971) and state law, challenging the
search and seizure of his property. Upon de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 

, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal), this court
affirms with modification.

       Dunn challenged a search of the residence he shared with his girlfriend. The
search was conducted by the girlfriend’s probation officer, accompanied by two
federal law-enforcement officers. The district court correctly held the girlfriend’s
consent was sufficient to allow a search of the entire premises. See Illinois v.
Rodriguez, 

, 181, 186 (1990) (search conducted pursuant to consent of
occupant valid as to absent co-occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to
share, authority over area in common). Neither the presence of law-enforcement
officers at the search nor the actual motivations for conducting the search change the
result. See United States v. Knights, 

, 122 (2001) (reasonableness of
search evaluated under traditional Fourth Amendment analysis; no basis for
examining official purpose); United States v. Brown, 

, 811-12 (8th Cir.
2003) (no basis for examining official purpose or “actual motivations” of officers;
Knights eliminated “stalking horse” or “investigatory purpose” inquiry); cf. United
States v. Becker, 

, 955-57 (8th Cir. 2008) (consensual search of
probationer’s residence by probation officer and two law-enforcement officers did not
violate Fourth Amendment).

      Because the complaint failed to state a federal claim, the dismissal of Dunn’s
Bivens claims is modified to be with prejudice. The without-prejudice dismissal of
Dunn’s pendent state-law claims was within the district court’s discretion. See
Labickas v. Ark. State. Univ., 

, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)
(following dismissal of federal claims, court may dismiss state law claims without
prejudice).
                      ______________________________




                                         -2-