
    Paul THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Detective Timothy GREY, et al., Appellees.
    
    No. 09-4149-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 20, 2010.
    Paul Thompson, pro se, Comstock, NY.
    Larry A. Sonnenshein and Shlomit Ar-oubas, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption as set forth above.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant appeals, pro se, from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which granted appellees’ motion to dismiss his complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellant’s complaint alleged violations under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as allegations of false arrest and malicious prosecution. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Upon a de novo review of the record, “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences” in favor of the appellant, Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed all of appellant’s claims.

As the district court properly recognized, there is no cause of action for the state’s failure to prosecute another person under section 1983. Thompson v. Grey, No. 08 Civ. 4499(JBW), 2009 WL 2707397, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2009) (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973)). Appellant’s false arrest and malicious prosecution claims also fail. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

We have considered all of appellant’s contentions on appeal, and find them to be without merit. Therefore, for substantially the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. 
      
      . On appeal, appellant does not challenge the district court's dismissal of his claim against the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York or the Richmond County District Attorney's Office. We therefore deem those claims abandoned. LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir.1995).
     