SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Bartolomé Brito, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion to dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s 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. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are generally assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Because all of Appellant’s claims were brought pursuant to either 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) or 1986, the existence of a conspiracy, as provided for under § 1985(3), was essential to each cause of action alleged. Gagliardi v. Vill. of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188, 194 (2d Cir. 1994). To state a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, Appellant must have alleged: (1) some racial or other class-based discriminatory animus underlying the Appellees’ actions; and (2) that the conspiracy was aimed at interfering with Appellant’s protected rights. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 268, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993). Complaints containing only “conclusory, vague, or general allegations of a conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights” will be dismissed. Ostrer v. Aronwald, 567 F.2d 551, 553 (2d Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Aside from conclusory assertions, Appellant failed to provide any factual allegations that Appellees engaged in a conspiracy, or that they were motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent or animus. Having conducted an independent review of the record and case law in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum decision and order. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments on appeal *622 and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.