Robert WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arthur SCHWARTZ, individually and in the capacity of managing agent, Allison Heilbraun, individually and in the capacity of attorney, DJA Management Corp., Norvax Associates, Dominick Calderoni, individually and in the capacity of temporary receiver, Defendants-Appellees, 529 F. App'x 89

SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Robert Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s March 1, 2012 decision and order dismissing his complaint, which alleged racial discrimination, housing discrimination, and general contract claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. As an initial matter, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction and declined to dismiss Appellant’s suit based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir.2005).

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “accepting all factual claims in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Famous Horse Inc. v. 5th Ave. Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106, 108 (2d Cir.2010). We also review de novo the denial of leave to amend on the basis of futility. See Hutchison v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 647 F.3d 479, 490 (2d Cir.2011). 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). 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). While pro se complaints must contain sufficient factual allegations to meet the plausibility standard, we 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, 474-75 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). After an independent review of the record and relevant ease law, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as those stated by the district court in its decision and order. We have considered Appellant’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.