
    George Howard MOORE, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Ms. CRUMP, Nurse; Nurse Allen; Ms. Chapman, Nurse; Nurse Jamerson; Mr. Flournoy, Nurse; C. Pendell, Henrico West Administrator of Sheriff Michael Ward’s Office; Michael L. Wade, Sheriff; Nurse Inscoe; B. Burtkewikas, Medical Administrator; Doctor Harler, attending facility physician, Defendants—Appellees, and T. Davis, Grievance Coordinator for Henrico County Jail West, Defendant.
    No. 05-6435.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2005.
    Decided Oct. 21, 2005.
    George Howard Moore, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Pierce Rucker, Kenneth Todd Roeber, Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, Richmond, Virginia; Rodney Kyle Adams, Leclair Ryan, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III, Coreen Antoinette Bromfield, Ashton Marie Jennette, Rawls & McNelis, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    
      Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).
   PER CURIAM:

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.

AFFIRMED 
      
      
         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).
     