SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Stephanie L. Zito, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal. We review de novo a district court decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir.1997).
Dismissal of a ease for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. A claim will have “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. While pro se complaints must contain sufficient factual allegations to meet the plausibility standard, see Harris v.
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir.2009), the Court should look for such allegations by reading pro se complaints with special solicitude and interpreting them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly dismissed Zito’s complaint. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned order.
We have considered all of Zito’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.