Case Name: James E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernard MCKIE, Warden; J.C. Brown, Captain and Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Sam Latta; Joiner, Associate Warden; L. Bailey, Lieutenant; Kevin Moore, Counselor; Mary Simpson, Manager; Paul Dennis, Counselor; Steve Woodwork, Counselor; M. Shivers, Sergeant; Vaughn Jackson, Major, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-08
Citations: 373 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 09-6134
Parties: James E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernard MCKIE, Warden; J.C. Brown, Captain and Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Sam Latta; Joiner, Associate Warden; L. Bailey, Lieutenant; Kevin Moore, Counselor; Mary Simpson, Manager; Paul Dennis, Counselor; Steve Woodwork, Counselor; M. Shivers, Sergeant; Vaughn Jackson, Major, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 423–424

Head Matter:
James E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernard MCKIE, Warden; J.C. Brown, Captain and Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Sam Latta; Joiner, Associate Warden; L. Bailey, Lieutenant; Kevin Moore, Counselor; Mary Simpson, Manager; Paul Dennis, Counselor; Steve Woodwork, Counselor; M. Shivers, Sergeant; Vaughn Jackson, Major, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6134.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2010.
Decided: April 8, 2010.
James E. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Matthew Blaine Rosbrugh, Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James E. Anderson appeals the district court's order denying his motion to alter or amend, in which Anderson sought relief from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. The district court found that Anderson's motion was untimely under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Because Anderson filed the motion outside the ten-day time period of Rule 59(e), the court should have construed the motion as filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir.1992). Because Anderson's motion merely addressed the merits of the underlying § 1983 action and satisfied none of the criteria for granting relief under Rule 60(b), we affirm. See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir.1997); Burnley, 988 F.2d at 3. 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 December 2009, Rule 59(e) was amended to extend the relevant time period to twenty-eight days. Anderson's motion to alter or amend was filed in 2008, and the ten-day time period of former Rule 59(e) applies.