ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Larry Don Shelton, proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment against him in this civil rights case for false arrest and imprisonment filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.

On April 3, 2000, while plaintiff was at the federal district court clerk’s office to research a case there, he was arrested on a state warrant by defendant Don Abdal-lah, a federal marshal. He was released from custody later that day. Plaintiff sued numerous defendants, arguing that a federal marshal has no authority to arrest a person on a misdemeanor warrant unless the misdemeanor was committed in his presence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3053.

The district court dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Pittsburg County because plaintiffs conclusory allegations did not give the County fair notice of the claims against it. The court dismissed *433 based on Eleventh Amendment immunity as to defendants Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Director of Human Services, and Administrator of the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. The court dismissed plaintiffs claims against defendants Director of Human Services and Administrator of the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services in their individual capacities based on plaintiffs failure to allege their personal participation in his arrest. The court dismissed plaintiffs negligence claim against defendant the United States because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required before bringing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. As for defendant Abdallah, the court observed that he acted pursuant to federal and state authority when he arrested plaintiff on a state warrant. The court concluded that defendant Abdallah was entitled to qualified immunity.

We agree that the marshal in this case was acting pursuant to federal and state authority, that 18 U.S.C. § 3058 does not apply, and that all of the defendants were entitled to judgment in their favor. Plaintiffs claim that the district court is biased against him is unfounded.

All outstanding motions are denied. The judgment is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.