
    James V. WILTSHIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keagan Marie WILLIAMS, ADA New York County, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 13-2497, 13-3660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 21, 2014.
    
      James V. Wiltshire, pro se, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Sarah Hardin Hines, New York County District Attorney’s Office; Larry Sonnen-shein, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Susan P. Greenberg, Senior Counsel, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR. and DENNIS JACOBS, Circuit Judges
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard C. Wesley, originally a member of this panel, did not participate in the consideration of this appeal. The two remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement, have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. I.O.P. E; United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457 (2d Cir.1998).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant James V. Wiltshire, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to reconsider its dismissal of Wiltshire’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

A district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir.2009). A district court abuses discretion if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or clearly erroneous findings of fact, or if its decision “cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir.2009) (citation omitted). Rule 60(b) is “a mechanism for extraordinary judicial relief invoked only if the moving party demonstrates exceptional circumstances.” Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Wiltshire’s arguments that the district court abused discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion are unavailing. First, as the district court determined, the dismissal of his criminal case (on speedy trial grounds) did not preclude a finding in his civil case that probable cause existed. See Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 85-86 (2d Cir.2007).

Second, Officer Warburton and Assistant District Attorney Williams had no affirmative duty to inquire further as to the status of Wiltshire’s protective order. Wiltshire relies on Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563 (2d Cir.1996), which observed that “failure to make a further inquiry when a reasonable person would have done so may be evidence of lack of probable cause.” Id. at 571 (citation omitted). However, as explained by the district court, a putative victim’s allegations alone generally suffice to support probable cause to arrest. See Curley v. Village of Suffern, 268 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.2001). Williams and Warburton were not required to “explore and eliminate every theoretically plausible claim of innocence before making an arrest.” Id. Wilt-shire alleges that he told Warburton that he had not been notified of the protective order; but this was not the type of exculpatory information sufficient to dissipate probable cause. See Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir.1997) (officer was not required to further investigate a suspect’s claim of self defense before executing an arrest); Lowth, 82 F.3d at 572.

Moreover, the record does not reflect that the district court overlooked the allegation that Warburton and Williams knew that Wiltshire had not been served with the protective order. The court acknowledged this allegation, but, as discussed supra, properly concluded that probable cause could be established nonetheless based on the victim’s allegation alone.

Finally, the district court did not abuse discretion by declining to reconsider the dismissal of claims against the district attorney defendants. The court accurately explained why those defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment and prosecu-torial immunity.

We have considered Wiltshire’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court. 
      
      . Wiltshire’s consolidated appeal, docketed as 13-3660, has been dismissed.
     