
    George ROSQUIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEYSPAN ENERGY DELIVERY NEW YORK a/k/a Brooklyn Union Gas Co., One Metrotech Center, and Leshack & Grodensky, P.C., and City of New York and State of New York and Charles Petitto, Kenneth Malley, Steve Line, Debra Silber, John Doe (a KeySpan Employee) and Tom Roe (a City of New York Marshall) both being unidentified persons and fictitious names pending discovery of their true names, individually, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 04-3113.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 7, 2005.
    (George Rosquist, New York, NY, on submission), for Appellant, pro se.
    Eliza M. Pugliese, Brooklyn, NY, for Keyspan Appellees.
    Carol Fischer, Assistant Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, N.Y. (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Robert H. Easton, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), for Hon. Debra Silber and the State of New York Appellees.
    Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Marschhausen & Fitzpatrick, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Leschack Appellees.
    PRESENT: JACOBS, CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

George Rosquist appeals from the judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Garaufís, J.) on April 13, 2004, which dismissed Rosquist’s complaint for failure to prosecute. We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of the issues on appeal.

Upon an independent evaluation of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rosquist’s claim for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); LeSane v. Hall’s Sec. Analyst, Inc., 239 F.3d 206, 209 (2d Cir.2001). We review de novo the decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Cooper v. Parsky, 140 F.3d 433, 440 (2d Cir.1998). For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, dismissal was appropriate.

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