Filed: Feb. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-10306 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-10306 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:10-cv-62393-JIC MATTHEW D. VAN WAGNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., Defendants, PHILIP HORNE, Deputy Sheriff, Broward County, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (February 10, 2014) Case: 13-10306 Date
Summary: Case: 13-10306 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-10306 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:10-cv-62393-JIC MATTHEW D. VAN WAGNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., Defendants, PHILIP HORNE, Deputy Sheriff, Broward County, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (February 10, 2014) Case: 13-10306 Date F..
More
Case: 13-10306 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10306
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:10-cv-62393-JIC
MATTHEW D. VAN WAGNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants,
PHILIP HORNE,
Deputy Sheriff, Broward County,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 10, 2014)
Case: 13-10306 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Van Wagner appeals the judgment in favor of Philip Horne, the
Deputy Sheriff of Broward County, Florida. Van Wagner sued for injuries he
received from another inmate while they were being transported by Horne to the
Broward County Courthouse. Van Wagner challenges the denial of his motion for
a new trial in which he argued about an evidentiary ruling and Horne’s alleged
abuse of discovery. We affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.
Moore v. Appliance Direct, Inc.,
708 F.3d 1233, 1237 (11th Cir. 2013). “[N]ew
trials should not be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum, the
verdict is against the great—not merely the greater—weight of the evidence.”
Hewitt v. B.F. Goodrich Co.,
732 F.2d 1554, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting
Conway v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.,
610 F.2d 360, 363 (5th Cir. 1980)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to order Detective
Walter Foster to retrieve from archives a videotaped recording of Van Wagner’s
arrival at the courthouse. The evidence would not have aided the jury and was
cumulative to Foster’s testimony. Foster, who investigated the incident, testified
that the surveillance cameras were located “far” from the prisoner unloading dock;
the video recording was hazy; and Van Wagner was detectable in the video only
2
Case: 13-10306 Date Filed: 02/10/2014 Page: 3 of 3
“because he [was], obviously, injured.” Van Wagner argues that the video would
have contradicted Horne’s testimony that he called for assistance while en route to
the courthouse, but the video would have been cumulative to Foster’s testimony
that Horne did not call for assistance until he arrived at the courthouse. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 403.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it failed to consider
awarding sanctions for Horne’s alleged abuse of discovery. “Rule 37 sanctions are
intended to prevent unfair prejudice to the litigants and insure the integrity of the
discovery process.” Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns,
178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th
Cir. 1999). Van Wagner argues that he was entitled to sanctions because he was
not provided a copy of Foster’s investigatory report before trial, but after Van
Wagner mentioned the delay in receiving the report, the district court called a
recess and allowed Van Wagner to review the report overnight. Van Wagner did
not request additional time to review the report, and after he reviewed additional
documents provided by Foster, Van Wagner announced that he was ready to
proceed with the trial. Van Wagner fails to argue, much less establish, that he was
prejudiced by admission of Foster’s report.
We AFFIRM the judgment in favor of Horne.
3