Michael T. Masuoka v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809-10 4th Cir. 1978 holding that the filing of a timely Rule…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1429
MICHAEL T. MASUOKA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
G. W. MURPHY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPO-
RATED; ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.;
KENNETH T. GOYA, Insurance Agent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge; James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-829-A)
Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: September 25, 2001
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael T. Masuoka, Appellant Pro Se. Mark David Crawford,
FRIEDLANDER, MISLER, FRIEDLANDER, SLOAN & HERZ, Washington, D.C.;
Richard Albert Simpson, ROSS, DIXON & BELL, L.L.P., Washington,
D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael T. Masuoka appeals from the district court’s orders
denying his motions for a new trial and to amend the judgment
orders. Because Masuoka filed his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motions
within ten days of the court’s entry of its orders and timely ap-
pealed such orders, an appeal of the underlying orders are properly
before this court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Dove v. CODESCO, 569
F.2d 807, 809-10 (4th Cir. 1978) (holding that the filing of a
timely Rule 59 motion tolls the period for filing an appeal from
the underlying order and that timely appeal of order regarding Rule
59 motion brings both Rule 59 order and underlying order before
appeals court).
We have reviewed the record, the transcripts of the hearings
on the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over
the defendants, and the district court’s opinions, and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. Masuoka v. G.W. Murphy Construction Co., No. CA-
00-829-A (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 14, 2001, entered Feb. 23, 2001;
filed Feb. 21, 2001; entered Feb. 22, 2001). 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

-- 2 of 2 --