
    Louise Marie DOVERSPIKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. International Ordinance Technologies, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-5024-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2011.
    Louise Marie Doverspike, pro se, Jamestown, N.Y., for Appellant.
    Edward J. Wagner, Wagner & Hart LLP, Olean, N.Y., for Appellee.
    
      PRESENT: RALPH K WINTER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Louise Marie Doverspike, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of her employment discrimination complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and denial of her motion to amend. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). The denial of a motion for leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161, 177 (2d Cir.2006).

Upon review, we conclude that, for the same reasons articulated by the magistrate judge in his well-reasoned decisions, Do-verspike’s arguments on appeal are without merit. See Doverspike v. Int’l Orinance Techs., No. 09-cv-473, 2010 WL 986513 (W.D.N.Y. March 17, 2010); Doverspike v. Int’l Orinance Techs., No. 09-cv-473 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010).

However, Appellee’s request for costs based on Doverspike’s initial incorrect filing of her notice of appeal and appellate brief is denied. Appellee has not set forth any authority for its requested relief, nor has it established that Doverspike acted with some improper purpose in failing to follow proper filing procedures.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED and Appellee’s request for costs is DENIED.  