SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Melvin Thompson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment entered August 22, 2011, denying his motion to remand the case to state court, granting the motion filed by certain defendants to dismiss the claims raised against them, and sua sponte dismissing his remaining claims. 1 We assume the *265 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to remand de novo. Pietrangelo v. Alvas Corp., 686 F.3d 62, 64 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam). We also review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 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). Although we have not yet decided whether we review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint pursuant to its inherent authority de novo or for abuse of discretion, we are not required to decide the proper standard in this case, as the district court’s decision withstands scrutiny under either standard.

Here, for substantially the same reasons as those stated in its decision, the district court properly denied Thompson’s motion to remand, granted the motion filed by the defendants who appeared in the action to dismiss his claims against them as time-barred, and sua sponte dismissed his claims against the remaining defendants as time-barred. On appeal, Thompson, for the most part, either reiterates arguments that the court explicitly rejected or raises arguments that have no relevance to the court’s decision. The sole issue he raises on appeal that was not addressed by the district court is that removal was improper because defendants Accent Capital and Terrence Riordan did not join in or consent to the notice of removal, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Although the district court did not explicitly address this argument, it did conclude that those defendants had been fraudulently joined in the action. Defendants who are joined fraudulently are not required to consent to the notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) (“[A]ll defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.”) (emphasis added); see also Rico v. Flores, 481 F.3d 234, 239 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding no consent to removal required by defendants fraudulently joined); Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1009 n. 2 (3d Cir. 1987) (same). Thompson’s argument is thus unavailing.

We have considered Thompson’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.