Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Alford v. Meltzer, 01-2121 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2121 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2121 DONALD M. ALFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE F. MELTZER, individually and as an employee of Snyder National Carriers, In- corporated; SCHNEIDER SPECIALIZED CARRIERS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and SNYDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-6-1
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2121 DONALD M. ALFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE F. MELTZER, individually and as an employee of Snyder National Carriers, In- corporated; SCHNEIDER SPECIALIZED CARRIERS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and SNYDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-6-1) Submitted: February 25, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald M. Alford, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Cooper, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald M. Alford appeals the district court’s judgment entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict in favor of the Appellees in this civil action and the court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Alford offers only conclusory assertions in support of his claim that the Appellees were re- sponsible for his automobile accident. In addition, Alford failed to object to Appellees’ cross-examination of Alford regarding his medication, and failed to move for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). Accordingly, we affirm. See Alford v. Meltzer, No. CA-99-6-1 (N.D.W. Va. filed Sept. 7, 2001, entered Sept. 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer