Ricardo Gutierrez DePineres appeals from the district court’s orders denying relief on his civil rights complaint and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. Construing this pro se complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), we find that, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, DePineres did seek monetary damages from Defendants Scott, Brown, and Choate for their alleged religious discrimination and violations of his First Amendment right by denying him Kosher meals. 1 Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the district court’s order dismissing this claim as moot and remand for further proceedings. We deny the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal 2 and affirm the district court’s order in all other respects for the reasons stated by the district court. See DePineres v. Scott, No. CA-02-248-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART