Torina Collis v. Bank of America, National Asso
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:06-cv-02451-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998557136]. Mailed to: Torina Collis. [09-2349]
Case: 09-2349
Document: 42
Date Filed: 03/31/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2349
TORINA A. COLLIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:06-cv-02451-PJM)
Submitted:
March 23, 2011
Decided:
March 31, 2011
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Torina A. Collis, Appellant Pro Se.
Elena D.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Marcuss,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Case: 09-2349
Document: 42
Date Filed: 03/31/2011
Page: 2
PER CURIAM:
Torina
A.
Collis
appeals
from
the
district
court’s
final judgment following her unsuccessful trial in which she
alleged employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
issues on appeal.
She raises numerous
For the reasons that follow we affirm.
First,
we
find
no
error
in
the
district
dismissal of Collis’ trial attorney Morris Fischer.
court’s
We note
that Fischer was the fourth attorney hired by Collis and that
Collis had ample time prior to trial to hire another attorney.
Second,
we
find
that
Collis
has
failed
to
show
entitlement to a new trial based on her allegation of juror
misconduct, and we find no abuse of discretion by the district
court regarding the matter.
See United States v. Basham, 561
F.3d 302, 319 (4th Cir. 2009) (providing review standard for new
trial), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3353 (2010); United States v.
Cheek, 94 F.3d 136, 140 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that decision of
whether
improper
contact
or
communication
compromised
the
impartiality of the jury is reviewed for a “somewhat narrowed”
abuse of discretion).
Third, the jury instruction to which Collis objects is
irrelevant,
as
Fourth,
do
we
the
not
jury
find
did
not
consider
the
that
the
district
court
2
instruction.
abused
its
Case: 09-2349
discretion
in
Document: 42
limiting
Date Filed: 03/31/2011
Collis
to
thirteen
Page: 3
trial
witnesses.
United States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 731 (4th Cir. 1993).
Finally, we decline to reverse the district court, as
sought by Collis in her fifth issue, and we find no error in the
district court’s ruling regarding Collis’ attempt to utilize the
judicial notice provision of Fed. R. Evid. 201.
See generally
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239-40 (4th Cir.
1989)
(discussing
Rule
201(b)(2)
regarding
judicially
noticed
facts).
Accordingly,
we
affirm.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?