Michael T. Masuoka appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motions for a new trial and to amend the judgment orders. Because Masuoka filed his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59 motions within ten days of the court’s entry of its orders and timely appealed such orders, an appeal of the underlying orders are properly before this court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4); Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809-10 (4th Cir. 1978) (holding that the filing of a timely Rule 59 motion tolls the period for filing an appeal from the underlying order and that timely appeal of order regarding Rule 59 motion brings both Rule 59 order and underlying order before appeals court).

We have reviewed the record, the transcripts of the hearings on the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and the district court’s opinions, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Masuoka v. G.W. Murphy Construction Co., No. CA-00-829-A (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 14, 2001, entered Feb. 23, 2001; filed Feb. 21, 2001; entered Feb. 22, 2001). 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.