Case Name: Anthony FEURTADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles McNAIR, Deputized DEA Special Agent; Chandler; United States Marshals Service; Richland County Detention Center; MDC Los Angeles, Bureau of Prisons; Sam Dunnivant; Robert McCauley; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Solomon Blatt, Jr., Honorable, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-13
Citations: 3 F. App'x 113
Docket Number: No. 00-7253
Parties: Anthony FEURTADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles McNAIR, Deputized DEA Special Agent; Chandler; United States Marshals Service; Richland County Detention Center; MDC Los Angeles, Bureau of Prisons; Sam Dunnivant; Robert McCauley; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Solomon Blatt, Jr., Honorable, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
Anthony FEURTADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles McNAIR, Deputized DEA Special Agent; Chandler; United States Marshals Service; Richland County Detention Center; MDC Los Angeles, Bureau of Prisons; Sam Dunnivant; Robert McCauley; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Solomon Blatt, Jr., Honorable, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-7253.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2000.
Decided Feb. 13, 2001.
Anthony Feurtado, pro se.
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Feurtado appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) claim against Judge Blatt with prejudice, revoking his unvested good time credits for malicious prosecution, and denying his motion for recusal of Judge Anderson. Feurtado filed multiple motions for post-judgment relief including a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and two motions to reconsider. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Feurtado v. McNair, No. CA-99-2582-3-17 (D.S.C. July 20, 2000; Aug. 18, 2000; Sept. 20, 2000). In addition, we deny Feurtado's motion to amend the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.