
    Carolyn Jane SIINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the NEW YORK CITY TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM and City of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-1684-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 26, 2010.
    Carolyn Jane Siino, Forest Hills, NY, pro se.
    Suzanne K. Colt, Senior Counsel (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief), The City of New York Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Carolyn Siino (“plaintiff’) appeals from an order of the District Court entered January 16, 2009, dismissing her claims against defendants, Board of Trustees of the New York City Teachers’ Retirement System and the City of New York (“defendants”), and a second order dated March 13, 2009, denying her motion for reconsideration. The District Court liberally construed plaintiffs complaint to be asserting the following claims: (1) violations of her “right to liberty” and “right to dignity” arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violations of Internal Revenue Service regulations, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Siino v. Bd. of Trustees, No. 08 Civ. 4529, 2009 WL 166557, at *3-5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.16, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.

We find no error in the District Court’s comprehensive analysis of plaintiffs claims, and we agree that the allegations in plaintiffs complaint were insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court substantially for the reasons stated in its thorough and careful memo-randa and orders dated January 16 and March 13, 2009. See Siino, 2009 WL 166557, at *2-6 (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss); Siino v. Bd. of Trustees, No. 08 Civ. 4529, 2009 WL 734076, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.13, 2009) (denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration).

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.  