SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Darryl Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

A district court must dismiss an in for-ma pauperis complaint if it determines that “the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. (punctuation omitted); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now renumbered as § 1915(e)(2)(B)). We review a § 1915(e) dismissal de novo. See Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d Cir. 2001).

Courts should read pro se complaints to raise the “strongest arguments that they suggest.” Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). Even read liberally, however, Williams’s claim that patent papers were placed in the vault of a federal courthouse does not state any valid cause of action. His argument that the district court did not consider “all the facts” alleged before dismissing the complaint, therefore, fails. Nor would further factual development have cured the legal defects in his complaint. For that same reason, the district court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint, which would have been futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

We have considered Williams’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.