
    Gary HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-0672-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 26, 2010.
    Gary Henry, West Islip, NY, pro se.
    Richard J. Rabin, Akin Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, J. GARVAN MURTHA, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Gary Henry (“plaintiff’ or “Henry”), pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint in his suit seeking to vacate an arbitration award in favor of his former employer, defendant-appellee United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

We review de novo the District Court’s decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). “To survive dismissal, [a] plaintiff must provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’ ” ATSI Comms., Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir.2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). When a plaintiff proceeds pro se, as here, we are “obliged to construe his pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations.” McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir.2004).

After conducting an independent review of the record and case law, we conclude, substantially for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned order, see Henry v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 602 F.Supp.2d 419 (E.D.N.Y.2009), that the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint was free of error.

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of defendant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.  