SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Kalonji Mahon, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which alleged that two corrections officers denied him access to the courts by mishandling his legal mail. 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 for failure to state a claim, construing the “complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” *53 Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).

Mahon has effectively abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his complaint by asserting that a state court clerk, not defendants, denied him court access by failing to properly file his motion, which he concedes was received by the state court. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 1995). To state a claim of denial of court access, “a plaintiff must allege that the defendant took or was responsible for actions that hindered a plaintiffs efforts to pursue a legal claim” and that the defendant’s actions resulted in actual injury to the plaintiff. See Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Mahon now concedes that the corrections officers were not responsible for his alleged injury, he cannot successfully challenge the district court’s decision to dismiss his claims against them. See id. Likewise, Mahon’s request that he be allowed to replead must fail: he no longer asserts any claims against the corrections officers and acknowledges that he later sued the state court clerk in a separate action that has already been dismissed. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that futile requests to replead should be denied). Additionally, Mahon’s attempt to challenge the district court’s denial of reconsideration is unsuccessful: we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of reconsideration because Mahon did not file an amended notice of appeal challenging that decision. See Fed. R. App. P 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); see also Sorensen v. City of New York, 413 F.3d 292, 295-96 (2d Cir. 2005).

We have considered the remainder of plaintiffs arguments and find them to be •without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED. '