#### Samaad BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENRY MODELL & COMPANY, INC., in its corporate and professional capacities, Modell’s N.Y. II, Inc., dba Modell’s Sporting Goods Stores, aka Modell’s II, Inc., Mitchell B. Modell, individually and in his official capacity as Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of Modell’s Sporting Goods, Jimmy Avila, individually and in his official capacity as Store Manager of Modell’s Store No. 66, Rich Walsh, individually and in his official capacity as Store Director/Loss Prevention of Modell’s Sports Goods, Tina Lewis, individually and in her official capacity as Property Manager of Modell’s Sporting Goods, Mary Naslenas, individually and in her official capacity as Modell’s Sporting Goods Employee, Carmen D. Cora, individually and in her official capacity as Modell’s Sporting Goods Employee, City of New York, Timothy Cronin, Shield No. 18111, in his official capacity as City of New York Police Officer, Beaume, Shield No. 31337, in his official capacity as City of New York Police Officer, John Does, 1-100, individually and in their official capacity, whose identities are not known at this time, Jane Does, 1-100, individually and in their official capacity, whose identities are not known at this time, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1679-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 11, 2011.

Samaad Bishop, pro se, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Robert Spolzino (Joanna M. Topping, on the brief), Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, NY, for All Modell’s Defendants.

Larry A. Sonnenshein, Assistant Corporation Counsel, (Andrew S. Wellin, Assistant Corporation Counsel on the brief) for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for City of New York, Timothy Cronin, Beaume.

Present: WILFRED FEINBERG, ROGER J. MINER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Samaad Bishop, *pro se,*appeals from a judgment entered November 13, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of *4New York (Buchwald, *J.),*which dismissed his federal causes of action for failure to state a claim, dismissed his non-federal claims without prejudice to renew in an appropriate forum, and denied him leave to amend. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural histoiy, and the issues presented for review.

We review *de novo*the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” *Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 *F.3d 147, 152 (2d*Cir.2002). We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend the complaint for abuse of discretion. *McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.,*482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir.2007).

For substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Bishop’s complaint and denied his motion to amend as futile.

We have considered all of Bishop’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.