UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MICHELE D. MOTEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA,

INCORPORATED, No. 97-2643

Defendant-Appellee,

and

TYSINGER MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(CA-96-2064-DKC)

Submitted: August 18, 1998

Decided: September 21, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dwight D. Murray, Suzanne M. Lewis, JORDAN, COYNE &

SAVITS, Washington, D.C.; Mabel D. Haden, LAW OFFICE OF
MABEL D. HADEN, ESQ., P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Paul Walter, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michele Moten appeals from the district court's order denying her

motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying her Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Finding no error, we affirm.

Moten was injured in an automobile accident. She filed a complaint

against Defendants alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict

liability because her air bag failed to deploy. Mercedes-Benz filed a

motion for summary judgment alleging that Moten failed to respond

to discovery requests, letters, and telephone calls. The district court

granted Mercedes-Benz's motion in part and ordered Moten to show

cause why her complaint should not be dismissed. The district court

dismissed the complaint without prejudice on February 6, 1997, when

Moten failed to reply to the court's show cause order. On August 21,

1997, Moten filed a "Motion for Vacation of Dismissal and to Reinstate the Action" pursuant to Rule 60(b), alleging that counsel's failure to respond to Mercedes-Benz's requests and the court's order was

the result of a serious illness.* The district court denied the motion

on September 22, 1997, finding that Moten failed to show that counsel's and her secretary's illnesses were acute or disabling prior to the

February dismissal. Moten filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant

to Rule 60(b) on October 14, 1997, which the district court denied,

and Moten timely appealed that order.

_________________________________________________________________

*Counsel was diagnosed with cancer in May 1997. Moten also alleged

that counsel's secretary and primary assistant also suffered from a terminal illness during the spring and summer of 1997.

 2
As a threshold matter, we find that the district court's order denying Moten's motion for reconsideration is the only order properly

before the court. Parties in a civil case have thirty days from the date

of the final order in which to file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a). As a result, the district court's February order dismissing

Moten's complaint is not subject to appeal. Likewise, the district

court's September order denying Moten's Rule 60(b) motion is not

before the court, because Moten's notice of appeal was filed more

than thirty days after this order. Moten's motion for reconsideration

did not toll the limitations period because it was filed more than ten

days after the order was entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(F).

After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the district

court's conclusion that Moten's motion for reconsideration simply

repeated the same arguments made in her original Rule 60(b) motion.

She therefore failed to make the necessary showing needed to justify

reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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

 3