
    Anibal AVILLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHUE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-1220.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 9, 2014.
    Aníbal Avillan, pro se, Bronx, NY., for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Benjamin H. Torrance and Jeffrey Kenneth Powell, Assistant United States Attorneys, New York, NY, for Defendants Appellee.
    Present: DENNIS JACOBS, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Aníbal Avillan, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order and judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action as time-barred. 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 decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Jaghory v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir.1997). 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); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. 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. While pro se complaints must contain sufficient factual allegations to meet the plausibility standard, see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.2009), we look for such allegations by affording the litigant “special solicitude” and “interpreting the complaint to raise the strongest claims that it suggests,” Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir.2011) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Upon such review, we conclude that Avillan’s appeal is without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court in its well-reasoned order. Avillan v. Donahue, No. 12-cv-3370 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2013). We have considered all of Avillan’s additional arguments and find them to be without merit.

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