UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY P. FEENEY, t/a Whispering
Pines Nursery, Incorporated; STATE
AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
                                                               No. 99-1771
v.

DONALD C. JONES, t/a Hickory
Mechanical Services,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CA-98-2616-S)

Submitted: March 20, 2000

Decided: April 26, 2000

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Herbert R. O'Conor, III, O'CONOR & GRANT, Towson, Maryland,
for Appellants. William C. Parler, Jr., PARLER & WOBBLER,
L.L.P., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Timothy P. Feeney, trading as Whispering Pines Nursery, and State
Auto Insurance Companies appeal the district court's orders granting
summary judgment to Donald C. Jones, trading as Hickory Mechani-
cal Services, and denying a motion for reconsideration filed under
Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.

After a fire destroyed a building housing the businesses operated
by Feeney and Jones, Feeney filed a lawsuit in state court seeking
damages, alleging that Jones' negligence caused the fire. Specifically,
Feeney alleged that Jones was negligent in leaving his two dogs unat-
tended at the business with an operating kerosene heater.*

Feeney challenges the district court's exclusion of his expert's tes-
timony regarding the cause of the fire. A district court's decision to
exclude testimony during its review of a motion for summary judg-
ment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See General Elec. Co. v.
Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142-43 (1997). We find that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of Feeney's
expert.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.
See Jakubiak v. Perry, 101 F.3d 23, 26 (4th Cir. 1996). Summary
judgment should only be granted if a party's submissions to the court
"show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.
_________________________________________________________________
*The case was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity juris-
diction. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West 1993 & Supp. 1999), 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441 (1994). Feeney's insurer, State Auto Insurance Companies was
added as a use-plaintiff.

                     2
R. Civ. P. 56(c). We find that summary judgment for Jones was
appropriate because Feeney offered no evidence, other than specula-
tion, that Jones' dogs caused the fire. Without any evidence establish-
ing that Jones' negligence in leaving the dogs unattended caused the
fire, Feeney's claim must fail. See Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.,
642 A.2d 180, 188 (Md. 1994) (elements of a negligence action under
Maryland law).

Furthermore, we find that the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion by denying Feeney's motion for reconsideration filed under Rule
59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Pacific Ins. Co. v.
American Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, ___ U.S. ___, 67 U.S.L.W. 3337, 67 U.S.L.W. 3368, 67
U.S.L.W. 3454, 67 U.S.L.W. 3457 (U.S. Jan. 19, 1999) (No. 98-742).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
