Case Name: Kittrell Bernard DECATOR; Craig Lamont Scott, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNKNOWN WARDEN, of Towson County; Unknown Warden, of Baltimore City Detention Center; Unknown Corr Officer, of Towson County; Unknown Corr Officer, of Baltimore City Detention Center, all in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-27
Citations: 56 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 02-7377
Parties: Kittrell Bernard DECATOR; Craig Lamont Scott, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNKNOWN WARDEN, of Towson County; Unknown Warden, of Baltimore City Detention Center; Unknown Corr Officer, of Towson County; Unknown Corr Officer, of Baltimore City Detention Center, all in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
Kittrell Bernard DECATOR; Craig Lamont Scott, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNKNOWN WARDEN, of Towson County; Unknown Warden, of Baltimore City Detention Center; Unknown Corr Officer, of Towson County; Unknown Corr Officer, of Baltimore City Detention Center, all in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-7377.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
Decided Feb. 27, 2003.
Kittrell Bernard Decator, Craig Lamont Scott, Appellants Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, TRAXLER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kittrell Bernard Decator and Craig Lamont Scott appeal the district court's order denying their "Motion to Vacate Void Decision" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 60(b)(4), which the district court construed as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Decator v. Unknown, Warden, No. CA-02-2582-S (D.Md. Sept. 4, 2002). We further deny Appellants' motion to review transmitted record. 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.