PER CURIAM. Mario Ballard appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, his numerous motions for reconsideration, and his motion for a certificate of appealability. Ballard’s appeal is untimely as to the order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction and the July 10, 2001, order denying his June 7, 2001, motion for reconsideration. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a); Kraft, Inc. v.
United States, 85 F.3d 602, 605 (Fed.Cir.) (holding that, following initial Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 motion tolling appeal period, successive motions periods are not permitted), modified on other grounds, 96 F.3d 1428 (Fed.Cir.1996); accord EEOC v. Cent. Motor Lines, Inc., 537 F.2d 1162, 1165 (4th Cir.1976). We find that Ballard’s appeal from the denial of the remaining orders states no grounds for relief. United States v.
Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir.1982) (finding no grounds for relief where motion for reconsideration raises no new arguments, seeks only reconsideration of legal issue, or asks court to “change its mind”). Consequently, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. Ballard’s Petition for Hearing En Banc is denied. 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. DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.