Prince A.Z.K. ADEKOYA II, also known as Prince Kayode Adekoya, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, (B.O.P.) United States of America, Marvin D. Morrison, Former Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, James Cross, Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, Dr. Bazerman, Former Chief Psychologist, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, Dr. Librati, Psychologist/DAP, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, Dr. Imeri, Inmate Companion Program Coordinator, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, Dr. Ryan, Forensic Psychologist, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, Rufus Williams, Former Captain, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, M. Walker, Lieutenant, Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York, Defendants-Appellees, 382 F. App'x 26

SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Prince A.Z.K. Adekoya II, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), accepting as true the factual allegations in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. See Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37, 40 (2d Cir.2007); Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006). In addition, we review de novo a district court’s ruling on whether a plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Ortiz v. McBride, 380 F.3d 649, 653 (2d Cir.2004).

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Adeko-ya’s claims as unexhausted under the exhaustion requirements of the FTCA and the PLRA. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough June 18, 2009 order. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.