SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Mashama Hill (“plaintiff’ or “Hill”), proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s judgment dismissing his complaint, which had raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations by defendants-appellees (“defendants”) concerning conditions of Hill’s post-release supervision. The District Court’s judgment was made pursuant to its authority to dismiss the case of a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii) and 1915A(b), as to claims against some defendants, as well as under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, with respect to claims against the remaining defendants. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the District Court’s dismissal of Hill’s complaint de novo. See Chase Grp. Alliance LLC v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Fin., 620 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting that Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are reviewed de novo); Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that dismissals made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A are reviewed de novo). 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). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). 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.” Id. We construe the submissions of a pro se litigant liberally and “interpret [ ] [them] to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). 2

*58 Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the District Court’s judgment substantially for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Scott in his thorough Report & Recommendation, dated August 8, 2011 and adopted by the District Court in its entirety. 3 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the February 15, 2012 judgment of the District Court.