the district court therefore considered the matter de novo. The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and entered judgment dismissing his action with prejudice. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723, 727 (10th Cir.2010). The court’s function is “to assess whether the plaintiffs ... complaint alone is legally sufficient to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” Id. (quotation omitted). In doing so, we accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to Mr. Hill. See id. And because Mr. Hill is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe both his complaint and his arguments on appeal. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th
holding that the allegations in a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers recognizing pro se litigants pleadings are held to a less stringent standard holding that pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers holding that allegations of pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers holding pro se litigants to less stringent standards than parties with the aid of counsel