
    Thomas J. REGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE, LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-388-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 28, 2011.
    
      Thomas J. Regan, pro se, West Hemp-stead, NY.
    Patrick J. Walsh, Assistant Solicitor General, State of New York Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: WALKER, CHESTER J. STRAUB and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Thomas J. Regan, pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the 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). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,-U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decisions dismissing Regan’s original and amended complaints. We have considered Regan’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  