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.