claim, plaintiffs must prove t. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). [2] As to Zembiec’s remaining claims for relief, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough opinion. [3] The district court did not err in denying Zembiec leave to amend his complaint. It reviewed the allegations in Zembiec’s proposed amended complaint and concluded that they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We agree that Zembiec’s amendment would have been futile. See Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We have considered all of Zembiec’s
holding in an appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 that when the papers before the sixth circuit indicate that the plaintiff could submit an amended complaint that would state a claim upon which relief can be granted the proper course is to remand to permit the plaintiff to amend holding that amendment is futile if the proposed amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend complaint because the proposed amendment would have been futile holding that upon conclusion that plaintiffs proposed amendment was futile district court correctly denied plaintiffs motion to amend holding that a civil rights plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under fmla against individual individual is not employer subject to liability under the act