
    Dyandria MURRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NYPD, ACS, Forestdale Foster Care Agency, John and Jane Doe, Lucille Blunt, Pascal Jean-Noel, Angelo Paccione, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-2759-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 25, 2008.
    Dyandria Murray, pro se, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Susan Paulson, Assistant Corporation Counsel, (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief), City of New York Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees City of New York, NYPD, ACS, John and Jane Doe, Lucille Blunt, and Angelo Paccione.
    Barry Viuker, (Anna J. Ervolina, on the brief), Morris, Duffy, Alonso & Faley, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees For-estdale Foster Care Agency and Pascal Jean-Noel.
    Present: Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Hon. PETER W. HALL, and Hon. JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable John R. Gibson, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Dyandria Murray appeals from a judgment entered March 14, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Holwell, J.), granting Defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. We assume the parties’ familiarity as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

On appeal, Murray argues, inter alia, that her federal and state law claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and custodial interference, as well as her state law claim for malicious prosecution are not time-barred under the relevant statutes of limitation, and that the district court further erred in dismissing her federal law malicious prosecution claim. We find these arguments to be without merit. We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Murray’s complaint substantially for reasons stated in the district court’s opinion and order. See Murray v. Admin. for Children’s Servs., 476 F.Supp.2d 436 (S.D.N.Y.2007).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  