
    Anthony Jerome McKNIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dawn Marie MIDDLETON et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-1664-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 5, 2011.
    
      Anthony Jerome McKnight, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.
    Dawn Marie Middleton, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
    Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Benjamin N. Gutman, Deputy Solicitor General, and Robert C. Weisz, Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel, for Appellees County of Kings Family Court, Robert Ratanski, John Doe, State of New York, Paula J. Hepner, and Other Unknown Persons, New York, NY.
    Lisa L. Shrewsberry, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, for Appellees Harold A. Mayerson, Mayerson Stutman Abramowitz Royer LLP, and Sophie Jacobi, Hawthorne, NY.
    Janet Neustaetter, for Appellees Carol Sherman, Martha Schneiderman, and The Children’s Law Center, Brooklyn, NY.
    Dennis J. Dozis, Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, for Appellees Eileen Montrose and Louis Lauro, New York, NY.
    PRESENT: WALKER, DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Anthony Jerome McKnight appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The 130-page Amended Complaint asserted 72 claims against defendants-appellees pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and federal and state wiretapping law, and for unlawful interference with his rights under a custody agreement, defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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). 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). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,-, 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.

We have conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles. We affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum order.

We have reviewed McKnight’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.  