Martin J. Reilly, Plaintiff-appellant, v. David G. Gray, Individually; Westall, Gray, Kimel Andconnolly, a Professional Association in Thepractice of Law, Defendants-appellees, 986 F.2d 1414 (4th Cir. 1993)

Martin J. Reilly noted this appeal from the district court's order pending disposition of a timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We dismiss the appeal as premature.

Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4), a notice of appeal filed before disposition of a timely Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 52(b), or 59 motion is without effect, and a new notice of appeal must be filed within the appeal period measured from entry of the order disposing of the motion. This Court construes a motion served within ten days of entry of judgment which calls into question the correctness of that judgment as a Rule 59(e) motion, however the motion may be formally styled. Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). Under Dove and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4), Appellant's post-judgment motion, styled as a motion to strike, invalidated the notice of appeal and requires dismissal of this appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982). Appellant may file a new notice of appeal within the appeal period measured from disposition of the Rule 59 motion.

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.

DISMISSED