
    Gina MALAPANIS and Computers Plus Center, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gregg P. REGAN, I/O, Chief Info Officer, Dept of Info Tech, Mark Bannon, I/O, Chief Technology Officer, Department of Information Technology, Holly Miller-Sullivan, I/O, Manager, Department of Information Technology, State of Ct, Richard Blumenthal, I/O, Attorney General, State of Ct and Dell Computer Corporation Defendants-Appellees, Nancy Cabelus, I/O, Officer in the Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, William Guida, I/O, Officer, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, Patrick Gaffney, I/O, Sergeant, Central Dist Major Crime Squad, Ct State Police, Division of State Police, Gregory P. Regan, I/O, Chief Info Officer, Dept. of Info Tech, Defendants-Appellees, State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice, Intervenor.
    No. 04-5548-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 25, 2005.
    Linda L. Morkan, Robinson & Cole LLP (James A. Wade and David S. Samuels,), Hartford, Connecticut, for Plaintiffs-Appellants, of counsel.
    Clare E. Kindall and Perry Zinn Rowthorn, Assistant Attorneys General for the State of Connecticut (Richard Blumental, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, On the Brief, and Jane R. Rosenberg, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut,), Hartford, Connecticut, for Defendants-Appellees, of counsel.
    Present: OAKES, JACOBS, and SACK, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . The official caption currently misspells the first name of Ms. Miller-Sullivan; it is hereby corrected.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs-appellants Gina Malapanis and Computers Plus Center, Inc. appeal from a judgment entered on September 80, 2004 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs alleged several procedural and substantive due process claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; a Fourth Amendment claim; and several state law constitutional, statutory, and common law claims. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

This Court reviews the district court’s Rule 12(b) dismissal de novo. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). Dismissal is only appropriate if it is “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him or her to relief.” Id. However, the plaintiffs legal characterizations of fact need not be accepted as true. Lentell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d 161, 174-75 (2d Cir.2005).

We have carefully considered plaintiffs’ arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned opinions of September 14, 2004 and September 29, 2004.  