
    Francisco Javier MONREAL, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NEW YORK, its Health (OPMC) & Education Departments and its Judicial Systems, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-2829.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 29, 2013.
    Francisco Javier Monreal, Jamesville, NY, pro se.
    Victor Gerard Paladino, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Nancy A. Spiegel, on the brief) for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Francisco Javier Monreal, M.D., pro se, appeals from the district court’s July 2012 judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). We review de novo a district court decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Jaghory v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“[A]bsent waiver or valid abrogation, federal courts may not entertain a private person’s suit against a State.” Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1632, 1638, 179 L.Ed.2d 675 (2011). “‘[T]he immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.’” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting Woods v. Rondout Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 466 F.3d 232, 236 (2d Cir.2006)). Every state entity sued by Monreal is an arm of the state that is entitled to sovereign immunity. See Gollomp, 568 F.3d at 368 (finding that “the New York State Unified Court System is unquestionably an arm of the State, and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity”) (quotation marks and internal citation omitted); Dube v. State Univ. of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594-95 (2d Cir.1990) (finding that the New York State Department of Education is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity); New York Ass’n of Homes and Servs. for the Aging, Inc. v. DeBuono, 444 F.3d 147, 148 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (finding that officers of the Department of Health are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity). The district court was therefore correct to dismiss Monreal’s suit.

We have considered all of Monreal’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  