UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of December , two thousand and four.

PRESENT:

HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, HON. BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR., HON. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

JEFFREY DICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-0306

JANET CHOW, Ms., of the Binding Together Inc.; JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Warden of Lincoln Correctional Facility; MEMBERS OF THE TEMPORARY RELEASE COMMITTEE, Defendants-Appellees.

JEFFREY DICKS, pro se, Brooklyn, NY For Plaintiff-Appellant:

For Defendants-Appellees: No appearance.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mukasey, C.J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

In October 2002, plaintiff-appellant Jeffrey Dicks, proceeding pro se while incarcerated, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dicks alleged a number of civil rights violations related to his removal from a work release program and sought $7.5 million in damages, as well as equitable relief. In August 2003, Dicks sent the district court a letter requesting the withdrawal of his "petition" and the return of his "papers." In September 2003, the district court, construing Dicks' letter as a request for voluntary dismissal, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. In October 2003, Dicks filed this appeal, requesting that we "reverse[] the withdrawal and allow the proceedings . . . to be addressed and handled in a Court."

The district court did not err in construing Dicks' letter as a request for voluntary dismissal. See Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996) ("[T]he pleadings of a pro se plaintiff must be read liberally and should be interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.") (internal quotes and citation omitted). Nor did the court, in granting Dicks'

motion, deny Dicks the remedy he now seeks; the court's dismissal was specifically without prejudice to refiling the lawsuit at a later time, and so Dicks is now free to file an identical or amended complaint at a time of his choosing.

We have considered all of Dicks' arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

For the Court, ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, Clerk of the Court by: