
    Carmel SPITERI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable Ricardo CAMACHO, Supreme Court Judge, sued in his official capacity only, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. Sonoma County, et al., Defendants.
    No. 13-3806.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 10, 2015.
    
      Carmel Spiteri, pro se, Marsascala, Malta, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Michael S. Belohlavek, Senior Counsel, Mark H. Sha-whan, Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel, New York, N.Y., for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, PETER W. HALL and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Carmel Spiteri, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting all factual allegations 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), and “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

To the extent Appellant’s brief raises claims against appellees other than Michelle Harrington or Michelle Mulligan, those claims were dismissed previously and will not be revisited. Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 736 F.3d 198, 208 (2d Cir.2013). As to the claims against Harrington and Sullivan, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Appellant’s claims. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough September 2013 decision.

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

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY Appellant’s several motions for judicial notice.  