Esperanza Guerrero v. David Moore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998985809-2], updating fee code. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01313-JCC-TRJ. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999077717].. [12-2373]

Appeal: 12-2373

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2373

ESPERANZA GUERRERO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
JUAN GUERRERO; JJG,
MUNGUIA; KG, Minor,

Minor;

MG,

Minor;

JG,

Minor;

MARIA

Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID L. MOORE, in his official and individual capacity,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CHARLIE T. DEANE, in his official capacity; LUIS POTES, in
his official and individual capacity; ADAM HURLEY, in his
official and individual capacity; DOES 1-6, in their
official and individual capacities; ROES 1-5, in their
official and individual capacities; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY; MATTHEW CAPLAN, in
his official and individual capacity; KAREN MUELHAUSER, in
her official and individual capacity; DOES 1-5, in their
official and individual capacities,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cv-01313-JCC-TRJ)

Appeal: 12-2373

Doc: 13

Submitted:

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

March 21, 2013

Decided:

April 2, 2013

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Esperanza Guerrero, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Notz, Mary Alice
Rowan, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2373

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Esperanza

Guerrero

appeals

the

district

court’s

summary judgment order disposing of all but one of her various
claims,

and

challenges

supporting

the

jury’s

remaining

claim.

judgment,

this

judgment

order

As
court
de

the

sufficiency

verdict
for

for

the

novo,

the

viewing

the

Defendant

claims

reviews

of

Moore

disposed

facts

of

on

that

on

summary

court’s

district
the

evidence

summary

and

reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011).

Summary

judgment is appropriate where the movant shows that there is no
genuine

issue

of

material

fact

judgment as a matter of law.
reviewed

the

record

and

and

that

it

is

entitled

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

find

no

error

on

the

to

We have

part

of

the

district court.

As for the claim decided by the jury, this

court

authority

is

without

to

review

the

sufficiency

of

the

evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, in light of Guerrero’s
failure

to

raise

an

appropriate

post-verdict

motion

district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 59.
Food

Sys.,

Inc.

v.

Swift-Eckrich,

Inc.,

546

U.S.

in

the

Unitherm
394,

404

(2006); A Helping Hand, LLC v. Balt. Cnty., 515 F.3d 356, 369-70
(4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly,

we

grant

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis, and affirm both the district court’s order and the
3

Appeal: 12-2373

jury’s
facts

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/02/2013

verdict.

We

and

materials

legal
before

dispense

Pg: 4 of 4

with

oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

because

presented

would

not

the

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4