SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant George S. Theodore, a retired attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing Defendant Environmental Facilities Corporation (“EFC”) as a party and the court’s judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Town of Putnam and Town of Ticonderoga (collectively “the towns”) in his diversity action alleging trespass and an unconstitutional taking for the installation of a sewer line across his property. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 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). With respect to the dismissal of EFC, we affirm because the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. See Chaiken v. VV Pub. Corp., 119 F.3d 1018, 1026 n. 2 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that this Court had jurisdiction “to review the interlocutory judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered prior to the transfer of the case to a district court within our jurisdiction and the issuance by that court of a final order”).

In reviewing the district court’s decision in a bench trial, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. See L.I. Head Start Child Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Econ. Opportunity Comm’n of Nassau Cnty., 710 F.3d 57, 65 (2d Cir. 2013). With respect to the entry of judgment in favor of the towns, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough September 13, 2012 oral ruling.

We have considered all of Theodore’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment and order of the district court. The Appellees have moved for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Upon due consideration, it is further ORDERED that the motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 is DENIED. See O’Malley v. New York City Transit Auth., 896 F.2d 704, 709 (2d Cir. 1990) (“An appellate court is ill-suited for the delicate, fact-intensive analysis and judgment needed to fashion a proper sanction [under Rule 11], one that will further the purposes behind ... [R]ule 11 but not unduly or unjustly punish an offender”).