Darius Maurice Bailey appeals the district court’s order recharacterizing his post-conviction motion as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying it as untimely. Bailey’s motion challenges the district court’s jurisdiction at the time of his conviction. Because Bailey timely objected to the district court’s recharacterization, Bailey was entitled to have the district court “rule on the merits of [his] motion as filed.” United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644, 649 (4th Cir. 2002). Although the district court erred in converting the motion in the face of Bailey’s objection, it is clear from the record that the motion as characterized by Bailey was without merit. Because we are able to affirm the judgment of a district court on any basis supported by the record, we affirm the district court’s denial of Bailey’s motion. See Eisenberg v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 301 F.3d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 2002). 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