¶1 George Howard Moore, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. * We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. Crump, No. CA-03-406-2 (E.D.Va. filed Mar. 3, 2005; entered Mar. 4, 2005). 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.
¶2 AFFIRMED
¶3 Appellees contend Moore’s notice of appeal was untimely, “thus divesting this court of jurisdiction to review the matter.” Although we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's underlying order dismissing Moore’s action, because Moore’s notice of appeal was untimely as to that order, Moore's notice of appeal was timely as to the district court's final order denying his motion for reconsideration. See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir.1992).