Case Name: Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy Joseph SULLIVAN; Liam O'Grady, U.S. District Court Judge; Roger W. Titus, U.S. District Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-21
Citations: 589 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 14-7347
Parties: Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy Joseph SULLIVAN; Liam O’Grady, U.S. District Court Judge; Roger W. Titus, U.S. District Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
Alexander Otis MATTHEWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy Joseph SULLIVAN; Liam O’Grady, U.S. District Court Judge; Roger W. Titus, U.S. District Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7347.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 15, 2015.
Decided: Jan. 21, 2015.
Alexander Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Matthews appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his complaint and amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) and denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Matthews v. Sullivan, No. 8:14-cv-00500-FPS, 2014 WL 2206858 (D.Md. May 23 & Aug. 13, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
In his motion for reconsideration and on appeal, Matthews asserts that the court should have considered some of his claims as common law professional malpractice, negligence, and gross negligence claims.