*38 SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Romana Van Houtven, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s April 3, 2014 order denying her motion for leave to amend, her complaint and dismissing her action with prejudice. 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the denial of motion to amend on the basis of futility de novo Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014). Leave to amend may be denied when the proposed amendments would be futile. Tocker v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 470 F.3d 481, 491 (2d Cir. 2006). Amendment is futile if it fails “to cure prior deficiencies or to state a claim.” Panther Partners, Inc. v. Ikanos Commc’ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2012). Courts consider the proposed amendments “along with the remainder of the complaint.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Upon de novo review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that the District Court properly denied Van Houtven’s motion for leave to amend, substantially for the reasons stated in its April 3, 2014 order. The record reveals that Detective Adams had probable cause to arrest Van Houtven for stalking based upon a Domestic Incident Report signed by Van Hout-ven’s ex-boyfriend that provided sufficient information to justify her arrest. See Singer v. Fulton Cnty. Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 1995) (“An arresting officer advised of a crime by a person who claims to be the victim, and who has signed a complaint [to that effect], has probable cause to effect an arrest absent circumstances that raise doubts as to the victim’s veracity.”). Such probable cause is “a complete defense” to Van Houtven’s claim of false arrest. Amore v. Novarro, 624 F.3d 522, 536 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2

Van Houtven’s abuse of process claim also fails because she failed adequately to allege that Detective Adams had “a collateral purpose beyond or in addition to [Van Houtven’s] criminal prosecution.” Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 77 (2d Cir. 2003). Van Houtven alleged conclusor-ily that Detective Adams acted “for the ulterior purpose of causing [her] ... to be unlawfully deprived of her liberty and civil rights, to suffer inconvenience, humiliation, shame, embarrassment, damage to her reputation and good name, and to incur legal expenses.” Proposed Am. Compl. ¶ 24. These alleged consequences, however, were incident to prosecution and not “beyond or in addition to ... criminal prosecution.” Savino, 331 F.3d at 77. We *39 decline to consider Van Houtven’s newly alleged collateral objective — that Detective Adams was “trying to get retribution,” Appellant’s Br. 8 — because it was not raised below. See Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[I]t is a well-established general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”).

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of the arguments raised by Van Houtven on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the District Court’s April 3, 2014 order.