PER CURIAM: In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Daniel Lugo (“Lugo”) appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his amended complaint and denying his various post-judgment motions. We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing a complaint, accepting all allegations “in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiffs favor.” Chesser v. Sparks, 248 F.3d 1117, 1121 (11th Cir. 2001).
Nevertheless, “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir.2003). After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that Lugo’s amended complaint failed to state a claim.
Moreover, because we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the amended complaint, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion by denying Lugo’s various post-judgment motions, including those requesting relief not pled in the amended complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders dismissing Lugo’s amended complaint and denying his various post-judgment motions. AFFIRMED. . Though the district court based its dismissal on the defendants’ argument for absolute prosecutorial immunity, we need not address that question.
Lugo failed to state a claim absent such immunity, and we may affirm for any reason supported by the record. See Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1294 (11th Cir.2007).