ROSS v. DEMPSEY UNIFORM AND LINEN SUPPLY NY FBI FBI NY (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Paul Raymond Ross, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint raising claims under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews a § 1915(e)(2) dismissal de novo. Hardaway v. Hartford Pub. Works Dep’t, 879 F.3d 486, 489 (2d Cir. 2018). The district court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990), but nonetheless must dismiss the complaint sua sponte if it is brought in forma pauperis and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the magistrate judge in his thorough December 29, 2016, report and recommendation.

We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.