
    Thomas A. LUBRANO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-5012.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 18, 2012.
    Thomas A. Lubrano, pro se, Shirley, for Appellant.
    Varuni Nelson, Margaret M. Kolbe, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Thomas Lubrano, pro se, appeals from the November 18, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

This Court reviews de novo a district court decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or (6). See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006) (Rule 12(b)(1)); Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002) (Rule 12(b)(6)). In each instance, this Court “constru[es] the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers, 282 F.3d at 152; see also Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474. Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000). In evaluating a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must determine if the complaint pleads “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

After having reviewed Lubrano’s contentions on appeal and the record of proceedings below, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion.

We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments and find them without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  