
    John Christopher BARLETTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John McCORMACK, C.T.O., Laura Powers, Deputy Warden, I/O, Anthony Bruno, Director Religious Service, I/O, Jon Aldi, Senior Review Group, Intel Ofc, I/O, Kimberly Weir, Security Director, I/O, LJ Harris, Lieutenant, I/O, Michael LaJoie, District Administrator, I/O, Gerald Hines, Aaron Bowman, McIntyre, Correction Officer, Sledgelowoski, Correction Officer, Siwicki, Lieutenant, Tawanda Kitt, Luis Colon, Angel Quiros, AKA Angle Quiros, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-951-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 16, 2014.
    
      John Christopher Barletta, Salem, OR, pro se.
    Steven Strom, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant John Barletta, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Covello, J.) dismissing his amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That amended complaint, brought primarily under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks relief for numerous alleged violations of Barletta’s constitutional rights and federal and state law. The district court determined that all of Barletta’s claims were either moot, barred by qualified immunity, or otherwise meritless as a matter of law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir.2004), and Rule 12(b)(6), Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

We have considered the arguments that Barletta raises on appeal, and have independently reviewed the record and the relevant case law. We find no merit in Barietta’s arguments and no error in the district court’s decision. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  