Albert Russell Clay, Jr., Petitioner-appellant, v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department Ofcorrections, Respondent-appellee, 991 F.2d 787 (4th Cir. 1993)

OPINION

Albert Russell Clay, Jr., noted this appeal from the district court's judgment pending disposition of a timely motion to alter or amend that judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4), a notice of appeal filed before disposition of a timely Rule 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. Appellant's timely Rule 59 motion rendered this appeal without effect, and Appellant failed to file a new appeal after disposition of the Rule 59 motion.^*  Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal. 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