SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Haining Zhang, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his amended complaint raising state law claims of breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, and denying his motion for leave to amend. 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). 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). After conducting an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons as those stated by the district court in its September 2011 decision. In sum, the district court properly dismissed Zhang’s claims as barred by New York’s six-year statute of limitations, for failure to allege *52 fraud with particularity, and for failure to raise sufficient allegations against defendant Shu Jun Liu in his individual capacity. Additionally, the district court properly denied leave to amend as futile. We have considered Zhang’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.