
    Michael J. SINDRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. Randolph SENGEL; Dietra Y. Trent; Mark R. Warner, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-1695.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 21, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 4, 2004.
    
      Michael J. Sindram, Appellant pro se.
    Alexander Francuzenko, O’Connell & Sarsfield, Rockville, Maryland; Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction. We vacate the district court’s order and remand for consideration of the motion on the merits.

After the district court dismissed Sin-dram’s complaint, Sindram timely noted an appeal. Subsequently, Sindram filed a motion construed by the district court as a motion for reconsideration. Believing that the notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction to consider the motion, the district court denied the motion.

This court has declared that “when a Rule 60(b) motion is filed while a judgment is on appeal, the district court has jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and should do so promptly.” Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir.1999). In Fobian, this Court instructed as to the following when a Rule 60(b) motion is filed after an appeal has been noted:

[i]f the district court determines that the motion is meritless, as experience demonstrates is often the case, the court should deny the motion forthwith; any appeal from the denial can be consolidated with the appeal from the underlying order. If the district court is inclined to grant the motion, it should issue a short memorandum so stating. The movant can then request a limited remand from this court for that purpose. By saving judicial resources and avoiding expense and delay, this procedure accords with the overarching mandate in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the rules “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”

Id. at 891.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration and remand for consideration of the motion on the merits. In so doing, we express no opinion as to the merits of the 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED  