Sharon Harris v. Susan Sutphin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00378-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court. [999794258]. [15-1756]

Appeal: 15-1756

Doc: 29

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1756

SHARON B. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUSAN BOWER SUTPHIN,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Robert S. Ballou, Magistrate
Judge. (7:14-cv-00378-RSB)

Submitted:

March 30, 2016

Decided:

April 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James J. O’Keeffe, IV, JOHNSON, ROSEN & O’KEEFFE, LLC, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Joshua D. Goad, JOHNSON, AYERS &
MATTHEWS, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1756

Doc: 29

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Sharon B. Harris appeals from the final judgment after an
unfavorable jury verdict in her diversity personal injury action
arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The parties consented to

the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)
(2012).

Harris appeals from the magistrate judge’s denial of

her Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law
at the conclusion of the evidence and after the jury returned
its

verdict.

Harris

also

challenges

magistrate judge’s jury instructions.

the

adequacy

of

the

We affirm.

We review de novo the denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 motions
for judgment as a matter of law.

Adkins v. Crown Auto, Inc.,

488 F.3d 225, 231 (4th Cir. 2007).

In assessing whether there

was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to return a
verdict for the nonmoving party, we must view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in her favor.
538 F.3d 306, 321 (4th Cir. 2008).

Id.; Buckley v. Mukasey,

We “may not make credibility

determinations or substitute our judgment for that of the jury.”
United States v. Kivanc, 714 F.3d 782, 795 (4th Cir. 2013).
Our
conclude

review
that

of

the

the

briefs

magistrate

and

the

record

judge

did

not

err

Harris’ motions for judgment as a matter of law.

2

leads
in

us

to

denying

We agree with

Appeal: 15-1756

Doc: 29

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

the magistrate judge that the evidence presented an appropriate
question for the jury as to liability.
Turning
improperly

to

Harris’

instructed

contention

the

jury,

that

we

the

note

magistrate

that

we

judge

generally

“review challenges to jury instructions for abuse of discretion,
bearing

in

mind

that

a

trial

court

has

framing its instructions to a jury.”

broad

discretion

in

Gentry v. E. W. Partners

Club Mgmt., __ F.3d __, __, No. 14-2382, 2016 WL 851673, at *3
(4th

Cir.

Mar.

4,

2016)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

Instructions are adequate “if construed as a whole, and in light
of the whole record, they adequately informed the jury of the
controlling legal principles without misleading or confusing the
jury to the prejudice of the objecting party.”
and internal quotation marks omitted).

Id. (alteration

Although we review de

novo whether the jury instructions were correct statements of
law, “[e]ven if a jury was erroneously instructed . . . we will
not set aside a resulting verdict” absent serious prejudice to
the challenging party’s case.

Id.

(internal quotation marks

omitted).
If the challenging party failed to preserve an argument by
“object[ing] on the same basis below as [s]he contends is error
on appeal,” we review for plain error.

United States v. Zayyad,

741 F.3d 452, 459 (4th Cir. 2014); see Gentry, 2016 WL 851673,
at *6 (applying plain error standard to unpreserved challenge to
3

Appeal: 15-1756

jury

Doc: 29

Filed: 04/13/2016

instructions).

We

Pg: 4 of 4

conclude

that,

in

the

instant

Harris is entitled only to plain error review.

case,

Accordingly,

Harris must establish that the district court erred, that the
error was plain, and “that the error affected her substantial
rights, meaning that there must be a reasonable probability [as
opposed

to

a

mere

possibility]

outcome of the trial.”

that

the

error

affected

the

Gentry, 2016 WL 851673, at *6 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, “the error should only be

corrected where not doing so would result in a miscarriage of
justice

or

would

otherwise

seriously

affect

the

fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

Id.

(alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
We
test.

conclude

that

Harris

cannot

satisfy

the

plain

error

Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s rulings on

Harris’ Rule 50 motions, and we affirm the final judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4