
    Glenn R. SCHREIBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Pratt & Whitney, Charter No. 0334827, Louis R. Chenevert, Gregory J. Hayes, David P. Hess, Peter A. Grutermann, Robert E. McGuinness, Walter F. Eells, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-4339-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 22, 2013.
    
      Glenn R. Schreiber, Wethersfield, CT, pro se.
    Jeffrey A. Fritz, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford, CT, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, and BRIAN M. COGAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Judge Brian M. Cogan, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Glenn R. Schreiber, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

Although we review a challenged judgment of dismissal de novo, see Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106, 106 (2d Cir.2010), we conclude, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, that defendants were entitled to dismissal. Further, although the district court did not offer Schreiber leave to amend, such a decision was well within its discretion because Schreiber had already amended his complaint once, and his subsequent filings demonstrate that leave to amend would have been futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir.2000).

Insofar as Schreiber claims that the district court held a hearing in his absence on Sunday, September 9, 2012, the record does not support this contention. Indeed, it convincingly shows that the order dismissing Schreiber’s complaint was signed and dated Friday, September 7, 2012.

We have considered all of Schreiber’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  