UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT THOMAS W. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-2085 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-99-572-A) Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: February 28, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed in part and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Thomas W. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Warren Whitney, Sr., Kathleen Dick Leslie, WHITNEY & BOGRIS, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Thomas W. Scott appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint against ADT Security Systems, Inc., in which he asserted a claim for breach of contract. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Scott v. ADT Security Sys., Inc., No. CA-99-572-A (E.D. Va. July 30, 1999). Scott also challenges the district court's ruling that his motion for Rule 111 sanctions would be moot in light of the dismissal of the action. The district court's ruling effectively barred Scott from filing the motion. A federal court may consider collateral issues, such as a Rule 11 motion, after the entry of a final order. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990). Therefore, the district court's dismissal of the case would not moot the motion for sanctions.

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the action but remand to the district court to allow Scott to file his motion for sanctions.2 We dis- pense 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 IN PART AND REMANDED IN PART _________________________________________________________________ Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

2 We express no opinion as to whether sanctions are warranted.