SUMMARY ORDER

Ozan Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals from the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

On de novo review of the district court’s § 1915(e)(2) dismissal, see Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001), we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its well-reasoned and thorough decision and order entered on February 15, 2012. Williams presents no justification for the delay in filing his § 1983 claim. Regardless of whether the district court properly considered a letter submitted by the City in determining whether to apply equitable tolling, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d), we conclude that, even in the absence of that letter, *5 Williams did not demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify application of equitable tolling in his case, see Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Transit Auth., 383 F.3d 74, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 82-83, 85 (2d Cir. 2002).

We have considered all of Williams’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Thus, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.